1951-03-20

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, an order was made
on the 14th instant in connection with a motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) for the production of correspondence with the government of Saskatchewan dealing with federal aid to education. On looking at the files I find that that correspondence was all tabled on May 23, 1950, and was added as an appendix to Hansard of that date. Perhaps that declaration might be taken in lieu of a new tabling of these same letters.
While I am dealing with this kind of subject, may I say that my attention has been called to the fact that I made too inclusive a statement on Friday with respect to correspondence with the government of Manitoba.
I tabled a letter, which was the only letter which had not yet been tabled. In doing so I said that the letters tabled on January 29 had been printed as an appendix to Hansard. I find that is not so. They were tabled and they had been distributed at the time of the dominion-provincial conference, and had received a lot of publicity at that time. However they constituted a quite voluminous collection of letters, and there was no order made that they be printed as an appendix to Hansard.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES TABLING OF AUDITORS REPORT

Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the auditors report to parliament of accounts of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ended December 31, 1950.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), and in pursuance of the National Harbours Board Act, I wish
to table, in manuscript form, the annual report of the national harbours board for the calendar year 1950.
It is expected that printed copies will be ready shortly, and as soon as they are received they will be made available for distribution.



REPORTED ARREST OF FIVE MISSIONARY SISTERS BY CHINESE COMMUNISTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has any more information since yesterday about the five nuns who have been arrested in China? This matter interests, very much, many people in Canada.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not very much by way of additional information, but the information I have I shall give to the hon. member and the house. It is as follows-


Mr. Fulton:: Why did you not give it to me yesterday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not give it to the hon. member yesterday because I did not have it yesterday. However, I have it today for the hon. member for Temiscouata, and other hon. members.
Attacks have recently been made in the Chinese communist press in Canton, Peking and Hong Kong against Canadian nuns of the Order of the Immaculate Conception who conduct the Orphanage of the Holy Child in Canton.
Typical charges made against the nuns are as follows:
1.	Far from pursuing acts of charity they are guilty of inhuman acts against the children in their charge.
2.	The orphanage is a typical example of an imperialist charity organization, operation of which would not be tolerated by the Chinese people.
3.	Since the communist liberation of Canton the orphanage had admitted a total of 2,251 infants, of whom 2,116, or 94 per cent, have died in the institution to date.

Inquiries of the Ministry
4.	This mortality rate reflects fully on the irresponsible attitude adopted by the sisters in caring for the infants.
This information, which we received from unofficial sources-that is the information as to these charges-has been confirmed by telegram from our high commissioner in London, who secured the confirmation from the United Kingdom authorities, who of course are represented in China.
A letter from the orphanage in Canton, dated March 5, has been received by the Mother Superior in Montreal. The nuns reported that the orphanage had been taken over by the Chinese authorities and that the Canadian nuns were to be deported to Hong Kong. There has been no official confirmation of newspaper reports of their arrest. The United Kingdom foreign office has been requested by the Canadian government to ask the United Kingdom charge d'affaires in Peking to do everything possible to assist these nuns who apparently have been the victims of grotesque and unfounded charges.



AUDIBILITY OF DEBATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask, but I am not sure whether it should be addressed to the Prime Minister or to Your Honour. It arises out of the statement made a few days ago by Your Honour with respect to audibility of debate and the acoustics of this chamber, a statement with which I fancy everyone is in complete agreement.
I suggest, sir, that during the Easter recess, or shortly afterward, you have some kind of plebiscite taken among the members of the House of Commons to see if something cannot be done about the inhuman hours we work, particularly at night. I think an attempt should be made to reach an agreement among members under which the sitting hours could be changed to the satisfaction of all members.
I suggest that Your Honour, and perhaps the Prime Minister and some others, might give this matter consideration and see if we cannot come to some agreement on it.



LAKE ONTARIO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon.
member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) made the following request:
I have been informed that buildings at Van Wagner's beach, near Hamilton, are being washed away by a storm which is raging on lake Ontario.


I would ask the minister if it might be possible to instruct the Hamilton harbour commission to give whatever assistance it can in this emergency.
The Hamilton harbour commission is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport, and not this department. The territory under control of the commission is confined to the inside of Burlington bay. Van Wagner's beach is on the inside of the sandspit stretching between Hamilton and Burlington, and consequently does not come under the jurisdiction of the Hamilton harbour commission. Any arrangements for assistance would seem to be a purely local matter.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a series of questions to the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret), notice of which has been given. They are as follows:
1.	Have additional carriers been requested by the postmaster at Hamilton?
2.	Has any consideration been given to supplying this need?
3.	How many carriers have resigned?
4.	How many letter carriers have been granted superannuation in the last month?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, this is
urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: As the house will be sitting only one more day before we adjourn for Easter, perhaps I should allow these questions. If the hon. member would like to continue, I will allow her to do so.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The fifth question is possibly the significant one. It is as follows:
5.	Is there a sufficient number of vacancies to absorb the men who have received notice of lay-off?


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assisiant io the Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker,
subject to your remarks, and as notice of these questions was given and the information is available, I am prepared to answer them now.
To question No. 1 the answer is no. Question No. 2 is answered by the answer to question No. 1. The answer to question No. 3 is that since February 1 the number is four. The answer to question No. 4 is that since February 1 the number is one. The information with regard to question No. 5 will not be available until March 31.



BACKLOG OF MAIL AT HAMILTON POST OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: I should like to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) or his parliamentary assistant what is being done to relieve the backlog of mail which has piled up in the Hamilton post office.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I have received no information with regard to the backlog of mail mentioned by the hon. member, but I shall be pleased to investigate the matter and do whatever has to be done under the circumstances.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.



QUESTION AS TO RECROSSING OF 38TH PARALLEL BY UNITED NATIONS TROOPS

Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I should like to take a few minutes to bring to the attention of the house a matter which I believe is of great concern, not only to the people of Canada but to the people of the whole western world. I refer to the fact that for the second time communist forces in Korea have been driven to or across the 38th parallel. I should like to know what action is to be taken by the United Nations forces when they reach the 38th parallel on this occasion.
On February 13 the leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), asked a number of questions which were answered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). These will be found on page 306 of Hansard and are as follows:
Were members of the United Nations consulted about the reported recrossing of the 38th parallel by United Nations troops? If so, did Canada express an opinion, and what was it?
Has Canada made any representations to the Secretary General or to the United Nations concerning reconsideration of the implied permission which was granted to the troops last October?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs replied in part as follows-and I do not think I am leaving out any important part of his reply:
There is some doubt as to the exact details about the reported crossing of the 38th parallel by a South Korean detachment. Apparently it was a purely tactical movement and on a small scale, and does not indicate that any decision has been taken for a major crossing of the line, even if military conditions make that possible.
In reply to the second question, Mr. Speaker, Canada has not made any representations to the
Korea
Secretary General or to the United Nations concerning the question of the recrossing of the 38th parallel by United Nations forces. However, representatives of governments with forces participating in Korean operations have had informal discussions recently with the United States representatives in regard to this and other matters arising out of the Korean campaign. These discussions have included a Canadian representative. As a result of these discussions, I think I can state that the political significance of any new move across the parallel deep into North Korean territory is fully appreciated. At this moment I would not like to add anything to this observation beyond repeating my view that any decision taken in this matter should be a collective one, including particularly those governments who are participating in United Nations Korean operations, of which the most important is the United States of America.
I wish to draw attention to one sentence I have just read from the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is as follows:
As a result of these discussions, I think I can state that the political significance of any new move across the parallel deep into North Korean territory is fully appreciated.
In other words, the military consequences of crossing the parallel last October are in the minds of the members of the United Nations, and particularly those who have representatives in the armed forces of the United Nations in Korea. So far as recrossing the parallel is concerned, the situation today is one that should not be left in doubt, and indeed in my opinion cannot be left in doubt very long, because if the United Nations organization itself does not take action in this matter, action may be taken by others. I maintain that the decision to recross the 38th parallel is a political decision and should be taken by the United Nations; the matter should not be left to any military general no matter how eminent he may be.
At this time the press is full of conjecture about what may happen. The question is discussed in newscasts. I believe that the government of this country, which has a military force with the United Nations forces, should not leave the country in the dark concerning what its attitude is witn respect to the recrossing of the 38th parallel. For my part I have always felt that it was a wrong policy to cross the parallel. I do not know whether any hon. members can recall the contribution I made to the debate last September, when we were discussing the sending of armed forces to Korea. I asked at that time what our attitude would be if we drove the North Koreans across the 38th parallel. I pointed out then that I did not believe we could unify North and South Korea under one government. I said in support of my argument that I had attended the United Nations assembly in 1947 when the commission on Korea was set up. I said that I had noted Soviet Russia's attitude at that

Korea
time to the commission, an attitude which has not changed since then, because the commission was never allowed to cross into North Korea. I said that if Soviet Russia had not recognized the United Nations commission in 1947 she was not likely to recognize it in 1950.
Perhaps I had better read to the house what I said at that time. As recorded at page 229 of Hansard for September 4, 1950, I said:
In my opinion we should without delay answer some of the questions people are asking. What are our intentions in Korea? If we succeed in driving the North Koreans back to the 38th parallel, are we going to stop there or are we going to go on beyond that? As this is a United Nations force, I agree that it is not altogether within our right to say what a United Nations army is going to do when it reaches that point; but our government certainly should make it clear what is their opinion on the issue.
I did not foresee that it would not be Russia but China that would come into the picture. However, whether it is Russia or whether it is China, I am satisfied that there is not the slightest hope of unifying Korea at this time under one government. In an article which I wrote on the Korean situation for a weekly paper in Vancouver in the first week of October I said that, in my opinion, for the United Nations forces to cross the parallel would needlessly and tremendously increase the danger of war. As it happens, it has been demonstrated that I was correct on that point.
I contended at that time, and I contend now, that so far as the United Nations forces are concerned this is not a war of conquest. It is not a war to destroy communism. It is not even a war, if there can be such a war, to prevent war. In Korea the United Nations took police action only, and in my opinion we are only justified in going as far as the boundary that was in existence and was recognized on June 25 last year.


Mr. Ferguson:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Angus MacInnis: Yes.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The hon. member says the boundary was recognized. The North Koreans, the Russians and the Chinese forgot to recognize it, and since then there has been practically no recognition of that boundary line. Nevertheless the hon. member must have reasons for saying that he thought it was a poor idea to pass that line. Will he give us the cold reasons why he came to that conclusion over and above the generals of the army?


Angus MacInnis: I thought I had already given those reasons.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You gave your reasons, but why did you have those reasons?


Angus MacInnis: I suppose I had those reasons because my mind worked that way.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Why?


Angus MacInnis: I cannot say why my mind works in a certain way; I only know it does. I cannot tell why the hon. gentleman's mind works in a certain way; I just know it does. I doubt if anyone can tell why he thinks as he does.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: But why did you come to the conclusion?


Angus MacInnis: 
Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker (Mr. Maclnnis) emphasized the extent of the devastation that is resulting from war being waged in Korea. There are three million people suffering privation and want such as the world has never known before. I am quite sure that the representatives of the various nations in the United Nations have made up their mind that they are going to stop wherever they possibly can, be it the 38th parallel or any other line, so long as that decision is in keeping with the situation as their generals in the field see it. The opinions of these representatives will be formulated at that time. I am quite confident that the generals in the field, who are tried and proven men, realize that the feeling of the people represented at the United Nations is that they do not want war.
There is one thing of which I am sure, and I believe and I hope that the majority feel this way: that when the troops fighting in Korea reached the 38th parallel and called upon the North Koreans, who were responsible for the suffering and devastation mentioned by my hon. friend, to stop fighting and when the North Koreans refused to do so, the generals handling the tactics of our armies in

Korea
Korea reported to the proper people in the United Nations that in their opinion we had better go after these fellows on the other side of the 38th parallel. We should dig them out, once and for all, and, if they could be apprehended, punish them for the atrocities they had committed. The North Koreans ignored the request of the United Nations for a cease-fire to discuss peace terms. They were impudent and arrogant, backed by Red Russia and the Red Chinese. When we ultimately arrived at the conclusion that it was necessary-and certainly the United Nations did not do so without a great deal of thought and concern about the ultimate results-our armies drove beyond the 38th parallel to the Manchurian border. They believed it was the right thing to do.
In my opinion all too frequently the question of the attitude of the Canadian government regarding our troops crossing the 38th parallel is raised in this house. The answer must be, and continue to be, that we will not cross it unless we have to do so. We will not cross it unless we think it is the best thing to do. If we have to cross it, we will. If we have to cross the Manchurian border, we will. If we have to go to Moscow, we will.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I do not altogether agree with the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) that we should stop at the 38th parallel. I believe it depends to a very large extent upon the action or intention of the North Koreans and Chinese. If they are willing to have a ceasefire when we reach the 38th parallel, so that there can be a general discussion in the hope that we may reach some agreement, then of course we can easily stop at the 38th parallel. On the other hand, if the North Koreans and Chinese are not willing to have a cease-fire, then we have to remember that the 38th parallel is not a natural defence line. In that case I believe we should proceed to advance until we have reached a line that can be easily defended, and in Korea that might well be where the land narrows.
When the resolution to unify Korea was before the general assembly, I recall that it seemed to be the general understanding that we would advance a certain distance and then establish a neutral zone. It was certainly understood that we would not go right to the Manchurian border. I gathered that it was the understanding also that Syngman Rhee would not go beyond the 38th parallel but would remain in South Korea. I do not know whether he stayed in the south, but apparently he played an important part in making political appointments in North Korea. I believe we made a great mistake in advancing to the Manchurian border, and

also in allowing Syngman Rhee to make political appointments in North Korea.
During the special session last year I think I made it plain that I thought a mistake had been made in going into Korea at all. In the first instance I supported the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he refused to send troops there. Many members stated we had gone into Korea to liberate the South Koreans. At that time I ridiculed the idea, and pointed out that we were going there for one purpose only, and that was to establish the prestige of the United Nations organization so that it might be a warning to the communist armies that if they committed an act of aggression at any time they would be met by the armed forces of the United Nations. How can anyone talk about liberating people when you have to go there and smash the country and bring about the wholesale slaughter of the people? At that time I ridiculed the idea that you could have such a thing as collective security. There is no such thing. Collective action, yes, but collective action and collective security are two totally different things. We shall never have security until the member nations of the United Nations organization are willing to live up to the principles of the charter. Until that is accomplished, there will never be collective security.
We hear a lot of criticism of General MacArthur. No doubt he has made many unwise statements. On the other hand, he is in a position in which I do not believe any other general has ever been. He is in the position of having to fight an enemy with one arm tied behind his back. He is having to fight an army that is allowed to attack him from any point, while he is not allowed to attack the supply bases of the army attacking him. That is not fair to the fighting men of Canada, the fighting men of the United States, or the fighting men of our allies. Unless we can place our armies in such a position that they will be free to counterattack the enemy at any point from which the enemy may come, then I believe we would be well advised to pull out of Korea entirely. We should draw a line, we will say through Formosa, and say: Now, if you cross that line it means war. In order to cross that line the enemy would have to have a navy. It would be an easy thing for us to stop the enemy at that point. I cannot see why we should allow the communist forces to choose the field of battle in every instance. I repeat that it is time that we chose the battleground and said: If you cross this line or that line, it means war. But let us choose a line that will be to our advantage instead of letting the enemy choose a line that is always to their advantage.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I disagree somewhat with the position taken by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). I think it would be a mistake for the United Nations to state definitely that it was their policy to stop at the 38th parallel. It would be just as great a mistake or even greater to advance so far in North Korea that again we seem to the Chinese to threaten their territory. Nevertheless this debate points up one of the most important aspects of the whole situation, and that is the essential need for civilian control over the commanders in the field. I am not certain that that objective has yet been achieved; but at the moment, so far as the tactics of the day are concerned, I believe the commanders in the field must have a reasonably free hand to decide how far they will go to secure a position which will be militarily defensible. After all, they must think of the lives of the men who are operating under them.
The commanders in the field must also consider this fact: They cannot attack the source of supply without declaring war on China; and I do not think any of us want that. Therefore all they can do is to attack the supply lines of these alleged Chinese volunteers-who are, of course, members of the Chinese army; and that can only be done in a satisfactory way if the supply line is fairly long. I reiterate my opinion that it would be a mistake just now to say definitely that it is our intention to stop at the 38th parallel.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of offering any opinion on the strategic or tactical situation.
I want to make just one or two brief remarks.
I well remember my feeling on October 12 last, which I think was the date on which the 38th parallel was crossed previously. It was simple. I did not have any wisdom before the event. I did not have any extremely strong views. I just had this feeling: "I hope they know what they are doing." In retrospect, it seems to me that it is not clear that they did know what they were doing then. They disregarded the strong suggestion that had come from India as to what would be the effect of crossing the parallel. As a matter of fact, though it is a view that I personally abominate, I know that there is a strong view held by many in England-what we will call the leftist view in England-that we were grievously at fault.


Mr. Coldwell:: And by some Conservatives.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That may be so. We will say it is a view that is quite broadly held in England. I happen to have seen it in an article written by G. D. H. Cole.
80709-92J
Korea
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) may be quite right in saying that others had that view. I was astounded by that article and the want of sympathy it indicated with the course that had been taken. That is, however, merely a digression. What I want to come back to is to make this point quite simply.
It seems to me that we now have what one so seldom gets, namely a second chance-a chance to consider this situation. We have, as I see it, this unusual situation. Elements, at any rate, in the high command-men like Eisenhower and those who take what we may call the European view-certainly desire any chance with honour, or even with face-saving, which would enable us to disengage in Korea so as to be stronger elsewhere. My point is this. I believe that the ordinary man in the street in Canada also has that feeling strongly, I therefore merely wish to reiterate what the hon. member for Vancouver East has said, and say that I hope at this time it will be possible for the minister to take us more into his confidence than he has felt able to do up until now.
I do not wish to dissociate myself from what has been said about the military difficulties. Any man who knows the least thing about military operations knows that you cannot give a man a job to do and then prevent him from doing it. We all realize the difficulties in which they have been situated. I do not wish to see the commanders in the field with their hands tied so that they cannot carry out what they should do. I am only suggesting-and I understand it was the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver East-that at this time, when we have a second chance, the matter should be again, reviewed, as I am sure it is being reviewed in all its aspects, and that the people of Canada should know as much as they can know about the situation now; because I believe that in overwhelming majority what they would like is that in some way this thing be stopped here and now.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should lose sight of the point of the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). The speech which has just been made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) and the one made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) show clearly, I think, that these views about the situation in Korea cut right across party lines and thinking. When I suggested to the hon. member for Greenwood that there were Conservatives in Britain who took the same view as Mr. G. D. H. Cole, I had in mind particularly one or two leading articles I read

Korea
in the London Times. The London Times is by no stretch of the imagination a leftist paper, but it has been critical of the operations in Korea. I think what my hon. friend, was really trying to impress on the minister and the house was that decisions that must be made to carry on this war must be political decisions; that is to say, they must be made by the political representatives of the countries that are associated in the United Nations, and particularly by the countries that are associated in the Korean affair. The fear that many people have is that this will not be done.
I was not at the United Nations assembly, as it happened, for some few days before the actual resolution was passed to cross the 38th parallel but I can remember distinctly last autumn the hesitation on the part of those of us who were there to accept the proposal when it was first made. I also remember that subsequently, in the month of November, we thought that a halt would be called and that negotiations would be opened long before the armies approached the Yalu river. But the political decision, if there was a political decision-or perhaps I should say this political understanding- was overriden by the general in the field. He may have been in consultation with his headquarters at Washington; even of that we were not particularly sure, but in any event he seemed to be paying little attention to what was, I believe, the opinion of a large group of nations in the United Nations.
Then there is what the hon. member for Greenwood has said about the constant warning that was given by India, an Asiatic nation knowing something of the feeling of these millions of people on the continent of Asia. I have no doubt that the minister of external affairs has expressed a view on this matter. But the important thing is this. I agree with the hon. member for Greenwood that not only the people of Canada but, if public opinion polls are to be relied upon, the people of the United States as well as the people of the United Kingdom, are anxious that there shall be a speedy end to this Korean campaign, with the greatest possible degree of honour to the United Nations. I believe they realize, as most of us do, that the real struggle and the real danger at the moment is not in Asia, but in western Europe, and that if we are persuaded to divert our attention and our energies to the Far East we are endangering the situation in the more vital centre elsewhere.
I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Winnipeg North, that in order to meet the threat of communism we should
[Mr. Coldwell.l
be paying much more attention to economic aid for these people than we have been.
What I really rose to say was that I hope we shall not miss the point of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East, as some obviously have done, that the decisions made should be political decisions, and that the military commanders in the field should follow those political decisions. As a matter of fact one of the things that has disturbed me in this Korean affair is that, as United Nations, we have failed to work out any effective method of controlling the military arm or the military forces assembled by the United Nations.
In our long history with these institutions that we call parliamentary, particularly in the Stuart period, and subsequently, the great struggle was as to who should control the standing army. In our parliamentary institutions we have achieved that control. It is rather different in the United States, however, where the president as commander in chief has great personal power. In our institutions nothing can be done without the actual and prior collective consent of the cabinet and of the parliamentary institution concerned.
I have been much disturbed about the lack of control of the military forces by civilian authority. At the moment we are setting up a western European force, and we are contributing to it. If I may just digress to this extent, I would say that one of the problems we should be thinking through carefully is how we are going to maintain effective civilian control of the armed forces that are being established in western Europe. I believe all the peoples of the democracies have confidence in General Eisenhower. I believe he is looked upon as being a wise man, a brilliant general, and a very human individual. But General Eisenhower may be removed; he is human. Anything may happen, and in such circumstances we do not know who would replace him. It could be someone in whom we would not have the confidence we have in General Eisenhower. And even with him, ways and means must be devised by the nations to retain control of the armed forces where that control should lie, and that is in the civilian arm of government.
The military have their tactical decisions to make after the civilian arm has laid down the objectives. I suggest that was the whole point in my hon. friend's remarks as to whether the 38th parallel is the actual place to stop. I believe it is. Whether there is a better defensive position just below or just beyond the parallel is a question, again, which should be referred to the United Nations which, in turn, would take the advice

of its military advisers and reach a decision -not by Washington, not by General Mac-Arthur, but by the United Nations, acting under instructions from their governments in unison.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather unfortunate that this particular discussion should have come up at this time. As I see it, the Korean situation at the moment is fluid. I do not think anyone in the house, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), is in a position at this time to make a decision as to what the future in Korea is going to be.
I say it is inconsistent, first of all to make the statement-with which I agree-that any action taken must be collective action taken by the United Nations and then, in the next breath, to say that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should rise in his place and make a decision in the House of Commons without first having consulted) with the United) Nations. That is just the reverse of the first suggestion.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Angus MacInnis: I would not, in my wildest moment, either awake or asleep, make a statement such as has been attributed to me by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I certainly did not say that; and if he says he heard me say it, then I say he was listening not to me but to someone else.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I did not say the hon. member for Vancouver East made that statement. I did not mention his name at all. I have listened to four hon. members speak, and I gathered my information from the positions taken by those four hon. members. Maclnnis-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Gillis: -or the hon. member for Vancouver East, was quite explicit in wanting the Secretary of State for External Affairs to decide what Canada's position was with respect to stopping at the 38th parallel.


Angus MacInnis: That, again, is wrong.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member had better read his Hansard.


Angus MacInnis: You had better read it, too.


Clarence Gillis: I am summing it up as I see it. One correct statement was made by all hon. members who spoke, and that was that there is considerable confusion in the minds of the general public, including many members of
Korea
the House of Commons, and that confusion arises from the fact that practically everyone one talks with outside the house, and many members in the house, are of the opinion that General MacArthur's action in crossing the 38th parallel in the first instance was contrary to United Nations policy, and that he took that action on his own initiative.
That is not the case. General MacArthur did exactly what the United Nations told him to do-"Exercise your own judgment." That position has never been changed. That mandate as to his action in the field is still the policy of the United Nations.
The unrealistic part of the situation is that action taken by the United Nations is collective action. I do not think the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be in a very sound position if he were to rise in the House of Commons and decide where General MacArthur's army is going to stop, without first having consulted with the other members of the United Nations who will make the collective decision.
The situation in Korea is such that the forces have been moving back and forth, and it is hard to tell today what the condition really is. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North in stating that I would not want to make a decision as to where General MacArthur's forces are to stop. The United Nations have been struggling for some time in an effort to have the Chinese government agree to cease fire. We know that our own minister was a member of that committee, and we also know that the attitude of the Chinese was arrogant, in that they were not going to decide where they were going to stop, except on their own terms.
We are still in that position. As the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) said, we cannot place a general in the army, give him responsibilities in a place as far removed as Korea, and then fight the war from an armchair in Washington. That cannot be done. The man in the field must exercise his authority and his knowledge of military matters.


Edmund Davie Fulton: General Pearson.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Corporal.


Clarence Gillis: The position as I see it, if we want to be realistic, is that we should suggest that our Secretary of State for External Affairs go back to Washington to consult with the other member nations affected in Korea, with a view to examining the situation and finding out what the present position is. If the Chinese still take an adamant stand and will make no decision except on their own terms-their attitude when their forces were on the march was that they were going tc

Korea
drive the united forces into the sea-there is not much use of talking about stopping anywhere. I think the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) was completely right when he said that if and when MacArthur reaches the 38th parallel and he considers that is a line which cannot be held, he should act according to what he considers is the best strategy. I think the proper line at which to concentrate our forces to the greatest extent is about seventy miles beyond the 38th parallel. This would provide a very good no man's land between the 38th parallel and the Manchurian border.


An hon. Member:: Another military expert.


Clarence Gillis: I am not a military expert but I did have the privilege of packing a rifle for four years and a half through France and Belgium in a war quite similar to the war they are waging in Korea today. I think I am just as qualified to express an opinion arising out of my personal experience as are some people who have expressed opinions.
At the same time I would not want to instruct the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) who has so ably demonstrated to the country and to the United Nations that he is quite realistic and courageous and will take a stand when he thinks it is right. I am ready to accept his judgment on a matter about which I know less than he does. Otherwise he would not be in his present position.
I do not want the house to think that I am trying to tell MacArthur what he should do in Korea nor am I trying to prejudge the case before it is discussed by the United Nations. Our minister of external affairs is representing this country and when the facts are assembled he will make his decision and inform the house with regard to the situation that exists today in Korea.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the house
will be glad to know that I have no intention of fighting General MacArthur's war either in Ottawa or at Lake Success. Like the hon. gentleman who has just sat down I also had the honour once of serving in the ranks. At that time I felt that I could probably fight more effectively than some of the generals in the field of strategy, but I have since learned better.
The question that is in our minds, the question that has been brought up this afternoon, is not, as has been pointed out, entirely a military question. While it certainly has military significance, it is political as well. It is a question, if I may put it that way, of whether to cross or not to
'Mr. Gillis.]
cross the 38th parallel. More accurately it is a question of whether to recross or not to recross the 38th parallel.
There is a real difficulty from my point of view in dealing with this matter because at. this moment, even this afternoon, informal discussions are going on in Washington with the other countries participating in the Korean campaign on the subject of what would be a proper political directive, if a directive should be issued, for the United Nations commander in Korea on this matter.
Although I do not think the United Nations has any right to fight General MacArthur's war, nevertheless it is our duty as members of the United Nations to lay down the political directives which would govern his operations. He is the first one to accept that fact. This question has come up before. As hon. members know, it came up last October when we were at the United Nations assembly. We then took a decision which authorized General MacArthur to use his own judgment whether to cross this particular line or not to cross it. We certainly have no right to complain of the decision although I think it is true to say that one of the factors in a good many minds at that time leading up to the United Nations resolution was the hope, indeed the expectation, that the crossing of this line might not result in a rush for the Manchurian or Russian border. I am not disposed to criticize that decision by virtue of hindsight because it might have been a very tempting idea at that time to clean up the war completely. It did not work out that way.
The discussions we are having now in Washington with the participating powers are concerned with this question once again. They are informal discussions, as any formal decision, or indeed any formal discussion will have to take place at the United Nations. But I think it is helpful for these countries which are participating in Korea to exchange views on this matter at this time, and that is what is going on. I do not think it is desirable for me to express any particular policy in regard to this matter at this time so far as Canada is concerned, for the reasons which have been indicated by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis).
It certainly would be unwise and unfair to the commander and to the men in the field to tell the enemy exactly what we were going to do in a military way when we reached that particular line. I think that that certainly would be playing into the hands of those whom we do not wish to help. No doubt when the decision is taken it will be governed by both military and political considerations. From the military

point of view, the first responsibility of the United Nations to its commander and to its forces is not to prevent him from taking action which he may consider it necessary to take to safeguard his men. I am sure that none of us would wish to do that.
It may be possible, or it may not, for a certain type of military action to be taken which might involve the tactical crossing of a particular line or the withdrawal from that line. It is that kind of decision which has to be made and, with all respect, I do not think it can be made at this time as the result of anything I may say in, this house.
Although military considerations are important, political considerations are equally important, possibly more important. When a decision was taken last October to authorize the United Nations commander to cross this line if he saw fit, there were political reasons behind that decision as well as military. The political reasons were that the United Nations felt that it should authorize necessary action to liberate and unify all of Korea. That is what we hoped would happen as a result of that decision, but unfortunately it did not happen.
I think most of us saw in our minds at that time certain dangers in that decision. Those dangers turned out to be much greater than we had realized. Possibly we were wrong in not realizing that. Well, we are up against the same kind of situation now and at least we have the advantage of experience. I hope that this time we will take all the factors into consideration so that the decision will be both militarily and politically wise.
It looks at the present time as if the situation in Korea may result in what General Ridgway, the United Nations commander in Korea, has called a military stalemate. He made that statement the other day and it was received with great interest in a number of countries. I myself would prefer to think of the situation, not so much as a military stalemate but as a stabilization of the military position. We might even reach a position where we have a sort of de facto cease-fire. What do we do then? All I would say on that point, Mr. Speaker, is that if we do reach the position of a sort of de facto cease-fire roughly along the line of the 38th parallel I think we should take advantage of that position, that military stabilization, to reopen negotiations with the people on the other side provided there is any possibility of that being brought about- and I have no illusions as to the difficulties on that score.
But if this position is to be stabilized in a way which now seems possible, it would
Korea
surely be statesmanlike to take advantage of that position to see if we can work out the kind of settlement which will make it possible for us to extricate ourselves, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) has said, "with honour", from Korea, because Korea is not the main danger front. For that purpose it might be desirable to try to negotiate something along the lines of the six point proposal which was put forward by our own delegation at Lake Success after consultation with a good many other delegations. I know that that idea is in the minds of people now, and I hope that possibly we might be able to utilize a favourable military situation to bring about a favourable political situation. But there again we must never forget that it takes two to make peace although it sometimes takes only one to make war.
We have not very much ground for optimism that the Chinese communist government will meet us more than halfway in any effort of this kind. However, I hope that the opportunity may present itself, and that we may be able to work out some kind of solution which will make it possible to bring this horrible conflict in Korea to an end with honour to ourselves and with freedom and unity to the Korean people. As General Ridgway pointed out, it is not the obligation of the United Nations to unify Korea by force, but it is our obligation to do everything we can to bring about that unity. I should think that the best way in which it could be done would be by negotiation if that is possible.
The good offices committee of the United Nations has already taken action in this direction. It has made an approach to the government in Peking but it has received no reply whatever to that approach. I would think that it would be unwise for us to despair because of that fact. There may be other avenues of approach; there may be other ways in which this can be done. We should certainly, I feel, use every possible opportunity to exploit every military advantage to achieve a political result which will end this conflict. If we can do that the objective of the United Nations in Korea will have been achieved, and something may have been gained out of the horrible carnage that has gone on there because it will at least have shown that the United Nations can act effectively on the battlefield and in the council chamber.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has said that we should use the experience we have gained in the Korean operation to work out a system of control under the North Atlantic organization by which the military is brought under appropriate international civilian control, the kind of control we take for granted in our own

Supply-Health and Welfare country. There has been difficulty about this in Korea but I would point out to those who emphasize the difficulty-and at times it is a difficulty which leads to some exasperation -that its basis is the fact that in the United Nations Korean operation about 95 per cent of the actual fighting in the field has been done by the forces of one country. Naturally the government of that country is going to exercise a preponderating influence in that operation, and we should be the last to criticize that. I think that on the whole we have very little to complain about the consultation which we have managed to achieve at Lake Success and in Washington on this matter.
The translation of the results of that consultation to the commanders across the Pacific is not always as effective or as easy as we would like it to be, but I suggest that is largely because of the nature of the operation. We are working along different lines in the North Atlantic organization and we are building up not only a military organization which will be effective, we hope, in preventing war, but a political organization which will be able to control, as civilian governments should control, the military arm. I think that is all that I should say now, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to repeat once again that as we approach a decision on this matter in Korea -and we are approaching that-I hope that decision will be both politically and militarily wise.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I have no
desire at this stage to enter the debate but the minister mentioned in his address the example of the United Nations in taking forthright action to stem aggression in Korea. I want to ask the minister this question, although he may not be able to answer it offhand because I realize that statistics are sometimes illusory things even in a mind as good as that of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I should like to know how many nations pledged help to the United Nations in the Korean war. Second, how many of those nations have a single man in the air force, navy or army in the Korean campaign? I think that is one of the situations which deserve some consideration because it is all very well, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) so well put it, for everybody to be armchair generals in this or any other parliament, with respect to the Korean campaign, but when it comes to effective action in Korea the forthright action taken by the United Nations was largely taken by one nation, as the minister pointed out. When we speak of collective action it seems to me that it has not been very collective so far as some nations are concerned even though they may have


provided some token troops, or at least given some token indication of their desire to enter the campaign. I should like the minister to answer the two questions I have asked.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think there
were fifty, fifty-two or fifty-three members of the United Nations that supported the resolution declaring North Korea an aggressor, and agreed to take all action that was possible to meet the aggression. Of those fifty-three I think there are-and I speak again subject to correction,-fourteen that have forces participating in military operations in Korea.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
National health branch-health services-
604. Food and drugs, further amount required,
Mr. Knowles:: I have a question to ask on this item, but before doing so, since the government seems to be jumping around in these estimates, I wonder if we could be told what is likely to be the order in which the departments will be called.


Alphonse Fournier: Last night I announced that we would take non-contentious items. Yesterday I was not very lucky. Today it is going a little better, but after these two items I think we will revert to agriculture and take up the special item of $65 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under this item for food and drugs, I may say that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will recall that some days ago I drew to his attention a report appearing in the Montreal Gazette which indicated that a prominent nutritionist in Montreal has stated that a good deal of the brown bread offered for sale is not whole wheat bread but is simply bread made of white flour and dyed brown by the use of molasses or other ingredients. I asked the minister if he would look into the matter, and the next day he made a statement in the house. As I recall that statement, without turning it up in Hansard, the minister said that under the Food and Drugs Act there are regulations which stipulate that if a baker puts out bread which he chooses to call Canada approved vitamin B bread, it must contain a stipulated percentage of whole wheat flour. However, he said a baker not wishing to use that label, not wishing to say it was Canada approved or vitamin B bread, came under no such regulations. This means, for example, that when unwrapped brown bread is put on the market the public has no way of knowing for sure whether it is whole wheat bread or whether it is, as the Montreal nutritionist described it, white bread dyed brown.

My purpose in raising the matter again at this time is to inquire whether consideration has been given to amending the regulations under the Food and Drugs Act so as to take care of this situation. I can tell the minister from the correspondence I have had that there is a considerable amount of interest in the matter. I find that a good many people are amazed to find that any brown bread, by virtue of being brown, would not be made from whole wheat flour. It does seem to me that the whole purpose of the act and the regulations under it is to protect people in these matters, and that a regulation governing this matter would be quite in order. I want to make it perfectly clear that there is no suggestion that any of this dyed bread fails to meet the health requirements; no suggestion is made that the ingredients used to dye it brown are not proper ingredients for human consumption. The point is that people generally assume that if bread is brown, it is whole wheat and has a certain vitamin B content. It appears now there is no guarantee of this; so my question is whether consideration will be given to amending the regulations to take care of this matter.


Mr. Martin:: My hon. friend reminded the house that I dealt with this question in part at page 713 of Hansard for this session, and there is no need to repeat now what I said then. He is quite correct in saying that in regard to brown bread, as distinct from vitamin B brown bread, there is no requirement as far as labelling is concerned. When we use the word "dye" I am sure my hon. friend would agree that we do not use it in the sense of a chemical dye. The colour of ordinary brown bread is generally brought about by the use of molasses or caramel, I understand, and the nutritional quality of the bread is in no way affected by the use of those substances.
My hon. friend is quite correct, I think, in saying that at least a large section of the public are under the apprehension that when they order brown bread they are buying whole wheat bread. I may say that in some of my efforts at reducing I have used brown bread from time to time thinking I was using whole wheat bread, largely for the purpose at arriving at a slimmer figure than I formerly possessed. I have not been very successful in using that formula, though I have used others and, as the committee may notice, with some success. I can only say to my hon. friend that we do not know of any brown bread of this type that is actually advertised as whole wheat bread. I am not saying there are no such cases, but my officers tell me that they do not know of any. At any rate, there 80709-93
Supply-Agriculture
is something in the point my hon. friend mentioned, and in my previous remarks I should have added that we are now having consultations to see if the regulations can be amended in some way to meet that point. I cannot say we will be successful, but I can say we are looking into the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am very glad to hear that, and I hope the minister will be able to report progress when the main estimates are under consideration. I shall raise the matter again at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Special-
576. To authorize and provide for a payment to the Canadian wheat board which shall be dealt with by the board in all respects as though it was money received from the sale of wheat produced in the designated area, sold and delivered to the board by producers during the pool period commencing on the first day of August, 1945, and ending on the thirty-first day of July, 1950, and to authorize the board, notwithstanding the provisions of subsections 2 and 3 of section 22 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, to distribute such amount together with all other moneys received by the board from the sale of such wheat, after making the deductions provided for in the said section 22, among holders of certificates issued by the board pursuant to part III of the said act during the pool period aforesaid, by paying to the person named in such certificate the same sum for each bushel of wheat referred to therein, $65,000,000.
Mr. Gardiner:: This is an item, Mr. Chairman, on which there has been considerable discussion. I am not going to assume that it is necessary to follow the line of the discussion that took place last week on an amendment to a motion for the second reading of a bill, but I am going to attempt to answer what I think were legitimate questions to be asked in connection with a vote of this kind. After these answers are given I hope that under the circumstances the committee will be satisfied to pass this estimate.
I rise to move that a sum of $65 million be voted to take care of the announcement made by the Prime Minister on March 2 that this house would be asked to provide that sum to be paid the wheat board for distribution to the farmers under the five-year pool. The question has been raised as to why the payment should be made. The government has agreed that the farmers had a right to expect a payment. That is the reason for the payment being proposed.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Had a right?


James Garfield Gardiner: The government has agreed that the farmers had a right to expect a payment. The United Kingdom government took the position that they did not agree they were further obligated. They have been informed

Supply-Agriculture
from time to time that, although we must accept their decision, many of us in Canada would of necessity feel differently.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask how that was communicated, and in what form?


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall give you this, and then you can ask your questions afterwards.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Chairman, just let the record be kept clear.


James Garfield Gardiner: You will find out by the time I get through with this.


George Alexander Drew: The documents were tabled,
and they did not indicate anything of this nature.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend thinks he is going to tell me what speech I am going to deliver in this house, he had better think again.


George Alexander Drew: I am telling you what the facts are.


James Garfield Gardiner: You can tell me the facts when I sit down, if you know what they are.
The United Kingdom government took the position that they did not agree they were further obligated. They have been informed from time to time that, although we must accept their decision, many of us in Canada would of necessity feel differently. We delayed taking action until they had been given every opportunity to change their position. I do not believe we can improve matters by discussing further the question of differences, although I am quite prepared to discuss them if my hon. friends want to have a discussion along that line.
The fact is that it was suggested in December, 1948, that a reasonable settlement of the "have regard to" clause would be made if the United Kingdom government would pay $100 million into the five-year pool. We estimated that the agreement entered into in January of 1949, to be applied to the sale to Britain of 140 million bushels in the fourth year of the contract, could have adjusted the amount by $35 million leaving $65 million to be met.
The question has been asked from time to time how we arrived at the figure of $65 million as related to the loan. Shortly after Sir Stafford Cripps began his drive to improve the dollar reserves of the United Kingdom, it was made apparent that this policy was going to be driven to a successful conclusion by eliminating every claim which could not be legally established. This brought on rather constant discussion of the "have regard to" clause in the wheat agreement. The matter came up first in December of 1947

when the British delegation on finance was in Ottawa; again in September of 1948 when Sir Stafford Cripps was in Ottawa; and finally in London in December of 1948 when I was there. After each of these discussions 1 raised the question with my colleagues as to how our claims under the "have regard to" clause could be safeguarded, and suggested holding back $100 million of the loan so that the dollar position could not be made a reason for not meeting the claim. It was explained to me on each occasion that the lack of a legal claim could make it difficult to make part of the loan available unless by mutual agreement.
When the special agreement was entered into in January of 1949, providing for a possible settlement of $35 million, I reduced my suggested caveat on the loan to $65 million. In June, 1950, shortly after the May 22 discussions, other justifiable reasons existed for reaching mutual agreement that no further amounts would be utilized from the loan excepting with Canada's consent. Unfortunately the United Kingdom took the position that the dollar reserve account would be affected by a loan in much the same manner as by paying cash, and could not be persuaded to use the remainder of the loan for the purpose suggested.
I am sure it will be understood that it could not be agreed that any arrangement entered into with Canadian farmers in 1946 could be set aside indefinitely because of dollar difficulties in the United Kingdom. When it was decided by the United Kingdom on May 22, 1950, that they were not paying more we felt we had to accept that as the legal position, and after every possible means of inducing them to reconsider their decision had been exhausted, we decided that the wheat farmer should not bear the burden of the decision alone, but that the amount we had asked the United Kingdom to pay should be taken out of the consolidated revenue fund in the financial year 1950-51 and paid into the wheat pool to be distributed as soon as possible. I use the words "wheat pool" there not in the sense that it is to be paid to the wheat pools of the different provinces but to the five-year pool that was set up under the wheat board.
We have been asked how we arrived at the figure of $100 million as a reasonable settlement for the years 1946-47, rather than $350 million as suggested by advocates of the grain exchange marketing system. We checked the method by which the grain exchange and others arrived at this figure of $350 million. I suppose it is not necessary for me to put the plan on Hansard because it has been put there a number of times by the member for

Souris (Mr. Ross), and by others-I believe almost the exact figures that I am going to place on Hansard now. We took the agreement figures of the sales to Britain from the 1946 crop, which amounted to 160 million bushels, and found that on the basis of class II prices of $2.43 No. 1 northern Fort William being the world price, the difference between that and $1.55 is 88 cents or a total of $140 million. Then we took the agreement figures of sales to Britain from the 1947 crop, which amounted to 160 million bushels, and found that on the basis of class II prices of $2.88 No. 1 northern Fort William being the world price, the difference between that and $1.55 is $1.33 or a total of $212,800,000. This gives a grand total of $352,800,000, and that is the figure which has been used by all critics of this plan from the time it was first set up until the time the actual figures have become known.
But I maintain that the class II price is not a proper basis to take, first because only 89 million bushels were sold in small quantities to different countries, to many markets, and second because the entire profit of the speculative market of the United States is represented in the build-up of that price. The speculative profit would not go to the farmers and hence should not be charged to the British. This was when we were making our representations to the British at the different times I have indicated earlier in what I had to say.
In order to find a price which would only apply to farmers in a similar area, I went to the agricultural department of the United States and secured the average price received by farmers at their local points for wheat each year. I found that the difference between the average the United States farmer received and what the Canadian farmer received for his 1946 crop was not 88 cents but 33 cents. This on the contract sale of 160 million bushels to Great Britain in 1946 would be $52,800,000. The difference between the average the United States farmer would receive and what the Canadian farmer would receive for his 1947 crop was not $1.33 on the basis used by exchange critics, but 71 cents. This on the contract sale of 160 million bushels to Great Britain in 1947 would be $113,600,000. The grand total would be $166,400,000.
On March 8 when dealing with this matter I was criticized for going back into the drought years when I said that over the previous fifteen years the United States farmer received 15 cents a bushel on the average more than the Canadian farmer and on this basis a deduction of $48 million should be made on 320 million bushels of 80709-93J
Supply-Agriculture
wheat covered by the contract in the first two years. If I were to meet the wishes of the critics and take the five years previous to the contract which is probably more fair the figure would be not 15 cents but 23 cents, and the deduction would be $73,600,000.
On the first basis this would leave $118,400,000 of a difference still to be dealt with; and on the second basis it would be $92,800,000.
When these calculations were made to the United Kingdom the actual figures were not available. They are now. I am sure that if they are used instead of the amounts in the agreement and if the further fact is acknowledged that the speculative profit is in the class II sales, the figure of $100 million will be acknowledged as reasonable. If we deduct $35 million already agreed to the figure is $65 million.
We think it was reasonable for the wheat farmers to have expected another $65 million under the terms of the United Kingdom agreement. We have decided that the ratepayers of Canada will not object to paying this $65 million and we trust that the fact that it is being paid, and the questions raised by the farmers thus settled, will result in a discontinuance of the kind of discussion to which we listened for six days last week.
The matter is in the hands of the committee, Mr. Chairman. I am quite prepared to answer all the suggestions that were made the other day with regard to lack of truthfulness, the suggestions that were made with regard to misrepresentation and the charges that have been made in other terms. But I am not going to invite the discussion by attempting to answer them in advance.
On the one matter that probably was in th minds of hon. members more than any other last week, may I say that I had not expected until a few moments ago to have any remarks that I might have found necessary to make so well illustrated on the other side of the house. It had been argued here for six days that there was some difference of opinion as between members of the government. If there could have been any better demonstration of the fact that there are differences of opinion on the other side of the house with respect to important questions, I should like to know what it is; it only required what took place in the last hour to demonstrate the truth that there are differences. All of the groups on the other side of the house were divided on an important question. I venture to say that if it were possible for any one of the leaders of the opposition in this house to muster sufficient

Supply-Agriculture
force to form a government, some of those who were differing in expressing their views would likely be members of that government.
I want to add this in closing my remarks with regard to the suggestions that have been made. I am quite satisfied that if the leader of the C.C.F. party or the leader of the Conservative party were able to form a government in Canada, neither the Minister of Trade and Commerce nor myself would be in it.


George Alexander Drew: That is certain.


James Garfield Gardiner: And, Mr. Chairman, there would be a number of reasons as to why we would not. We are both quite satisfied to be where we are. One of the reasons why we are satisfied to be where we are is that we both know that we can afford to make statements knowing that we might be incorrect because we have a leader who does not make many mistakes; and we are quite satisfied that when we present arguments upon which we do not fully agree, if we present them clearly enough and set forth all the facts, the judicial mind of the leader of the Liberal party and the leader of the government will so sift out the facts and so express the conclusions that, when he has expressed them, we can both agree with the decision that he has arrived at.
After all, when we chose a leader we selected one we have confidence in. I am afraid that some of my friends on the other side of the house had certain reasons for the positions they were taking. My friends in the west were starting out with the idea that they were going to wipe the ground with the Minister of Trade and Commerce because they were going to accuse him of having killed any possibility of payment to the western farmers. My friends a little nearer the Speaker were going to utilize some periodicals in eastern Canada and some others in order to demonstrate that the Minister of Agriculture had taken out of the treasury $65 million that never should have been taken out; and so by walloping the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the west and the Minister of Agriculture in the east, they were going to get a government under the leadership of men who cannot control the membership of their own parties, as was demonstrated within the experience of this house within the last hour. There were three of them on their feet over there at one time in the C.C.F. party, trying to demonstrate that remarks that they made some time ago, as reported in Hansard, were not as they were being quoted by other members of their party. If my hon. friend wants to carry on his discussion any further with regard to

what has been taking place recently in the province of Saskatchewan and elsewhere, I am quite prepared to go on with the discussion; but for the time being, I would prefer to have the $65 million passed.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, this chamber
has listened to one of the most specious arguments ever presented to it since I have been here. It has listened to a statement by one of the senior members of this government which has established clearly that he does not even begin to understand the basic principles of our parliamentary system of responsible government. When he spoke of the fact that members on the other side of the house in speaking on the subject were not in agreement, and that this justified the measure of disagreement between members of the government to which he belongs, he simply displayed his common disregard for the fundamental principles of cabinet solidarity, which is the very foundation of our system of responsible government.


James Garfield Gardiner: The government has much
greater solidarity than any Conservative government we have ever had in Canada.


An hon. Member:: How about price controls?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, these tawdry
political remarks of the Minister of Agriculture-


James Garfield Gardiner: Don't get angry.


George Alexander Drew: These tawdry political remarks of the Minister of Agriculture, who has just spoken, simply indicate the basis upon which this whole problem is being approached.
He has returned to the house today and, not satisfied with his reckless disregard for the good will between the governments of Canada and Great Britain, he goes still further and now tries to carry forward his plan by sowing discontent between east and west. Having followed a thoroughly contemptible course in his earlier speech-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -he carries the same very contemptible course forward in his present remarks.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member has the right to refer to the remarks of any member as being contemptible.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


The Chairman:: I think the leader of the opposition should modify the expression.


An hon. Member:: Could the chairman keep order now?


James Garfield Gardiner: Keep cool, and you will not use those words.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Agriculture has placed upon the record-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Agriculture has placed upon the record statements to the effect that it was the continuing representation to the government of the United Kingdom in regard to these payments which leaves the impression that the government of the United Kingdom has not fulfilled its obligation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, a point of order was raised and I think you should rule upon it. If you decide that the expression "contemptible conduct"-


George Alexander Drew: No, "contemptible remarks".


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -is parliamentary, we will respect your decision. But I do not think the leader of the opposition is entitled to go on until that matter has been disposed of.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I must rule that the remark of the leader of the opposition was unparliamentary.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I would ask him to
modify it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, there had been no ruling made that my remarks were to be withdrawn, and until there is a ruling I do not intend to withdraw them.


James Garfield Gardiner: He just made it.


George Alexander Drew: No.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: If the remark is unparliamentary, I have to rule that it should be withdrawn.


An hon. Member:: 


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Or modified.


George Alexander Drew: If it is ruled unparliamentary, that is different; but you have not ruled that it is unparliamentary.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, he has.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I have; and I ask the
leader of the opposition to modify or withdraw it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, under your direction I will withdraw. I certainly shall not modify it.
The Minister of Agriculture has sought to re-emphasize in the house the impression that the government of the United Kingdom did not make the payments it should have made. That is the basic difference between the points of view put forward by two ministers, which is of the utmost importance in dealing
S up p ly-A griculture
with the payment now before the parliament of Canada, and for which the government is asking approval.
On Thursday last, as sessional paper 113-A, the records of the meeting of May 22 of last year in London were placed upon the table, and also a copy of the message sent to the government of the United Kingdom on May 30. These records do not leave any impression that the government of Canada was simply recognizing the declaration by the government of the United Kingdom that nothing further was owing. On the contrary these make it perfectly clear that, as of May 30 of last year, the government of Canada in a formal declaration, communicated through official channels, agreed with the government of the United Kingdom that nothing further was owing.
There is a very great difference between those two positions. What is more, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) went to some pains in the house a week ago Monday to make it perfectly clear that in his opinion the government of the United Kingdom had fulfilled its part of the contract in every way. What is more, he finished his remarks by deploring the fact that anyone should suggest that the government of the United Kingdom had not played fair with the government and people of Canada.
Those two positions cannot go hand in hand. Those two positions have a profound effect upon the subject we are now considering. If there was in fact a belief on, the part of the government of Canada that there was some balance owing in respect of the contract, then it might be natural that the government would say, "We entered into a contract believing it would be setting up a certain basis, and we are going to make good the difference between what we think should have been done and what actually was done."
But that is not the position of the government. By their agreement on May 30 last year that the government of the United Kingdom had carried out its obligation in full, they denied the possibility that they can now assert as a government that there was any balance owing under that contract. Therefore the payment now proposed by the government must be on some other basis-and we-are still waiting to be told what that basis is..
Since the government by its own decision of May 30 last year cannot possibly ask the House of Commons now to approve of a payment in respect of a contract which had been fully paid, then they must ask us to approve of this under some other principle, and upon some other basis.
In the earlier discussions on the subject it was pointed out that there might be

Supply-Agriculture
another basis. When the government takes over wheat, or any agricultural product -or in fact any product of any kind, or any personal service-by compulsion, then unquestionably there is a moral obligation on the part of the government to reimburse those whose products or services are being taken under compulsion, and to reimburse them on a just and proper basis. If that is the basis then we are still waiting to be told that that is the principle under which the payment is to be made. What we have pointed out is that if such principle is enunciated in this house then obviously that principle must apply with equal force to every other agricultural producer, to the hog raiser, to the fruit grower, to the potato grower, to the dairy producer, to everyone else whose products are taken over under the compulsion that goes with the emergency powers now possessed by the government. The same principle would apply with equal force to production of every kind and to personal services as well.
It has been made abundantly clear that in this house there is a desire to make sure that people in every part of this country are dealt with fairly and properly and justly wherever the government takes action that denies to the individual the right to assert his own position as to what he shall receive for his product or for his services. The explanation given today for the manner in which the $65 million was determined as the figure to be paid does not show any mathematical basis for the calculation of that amount. The obvious fact is that there was $65 million still unclaimed of the loan made available to the government of the United Kingdom. Whether we use the euphonious expression that it was pointed out to the government of the United Kingdom that there was $65 million available for this purpose, or whether we say that it was suggested to the government of the United Kingdom that they should pay $65 million as the balance under this contract by taking up the remainder of the loan and then paying it over to the government, the fact is that the figure of $65 million was arrived at in that way. No other basis of computation has been put forward as yet.


James Garfield Gardiner: You were too angry to
hear it.


George Alexander Drew: Members of this house will
read in Hansard a confused mass of figures which show no mathematical basis for arriving at the figure of $65 million.


James Garfield Gardiner: They all understand it
but you.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Agriculture
has placed before this house still further reasons why it would have been highly desirable that the government should establish what the principle is under which the payment is to be made and then, having established that, set up a royal commission to inquire into what the balance really is under the principle set forth. That would give the members of this house some accurate estimate upon which they could base a conclusion, and it would give them the essential facts in relation to an understandable principle. We have not yet received any information of that kind.
What has been put before us today is a repetition of earlier statements which could only convey the impression gained from the earlier speech of the Minister of Agriculture, as demonstrated by statements made in this house by other Liberal members. It will be recalled by members who were here at the time that with the impression left by the Minister of Agriculture such terms as "repudiation" were used, and it will be recalled also that one Liberal member, obviously basing his views upon the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, said that the government of the United Kingdom was not playing ball.
The Minister of Agriculture is prepared to sow the seeds of distrust between this government and the government of the United Kingdom to back up an argument which is not in accord either with the record or with the statement made in this house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It appears from the remarks he has made today that he is prepared to carry the same procedure still further and to seek to deal with every question that is raised in regard to this by trying to sow further distrust between different parts of this country.
This is a matter which affects all Canadians. On the one hand are those who were called upon to deliver their wheat to the government under the compulsion of the authority possessed by the government at that time, and on the other hand are the taxpayers of Canada who will pay whatever settlement is made. As has been said already, there could be no suggestion here that the taxpayers of Canada wherever they live will not be ready to support the payment of whatever obligation is clearly established by proper methods. I am sure that people in every part of this country will recognize that payment made upon any other basis would only leave a most unsatisfactory situation in which there would be no clear understanding as to how similar obligations would be dealt with in the future. Mr. MARCH 20, 1951
Chairman, for that reason I move, seconded by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks):
That consideration of this item be deferred until the committee has been informed as to the principle under which a payment of $65 million is to be made and the method by which the said amount has been arrived at.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the motion made by the Minister of Agriculture to approve the $65 million appropriation. I think it would be most unfortunate if any delay occurred in making the final payment to the farmers. Many of our western farmers were disappointed in their crops last year because of frost and low prices and the fact that some is still left unthreshed and they need the money that is coming to them. Although we think the amount suggested is inadequate to compensate the western farmers we shall support the motion, and I want to see it passed as rapidly as possible in order that the money may be paid to the farmers of western Canada without undue delay.
I know that the question of payment to the farmers of the west for the manner in which they subsidized the bread of the Canadian people during the war years forms no part of this appropriation. I could wish, and indeed if the rules of the house would allow it I would move, that an additional $48 million, the sum estimated, be put in the estimates to compensate the western farmers for the low price they received for grain milled in Canada to provide the Canadian people with a cheap loaf during the war. As I say, that cannot be done from this side of the house. The rules do not allow it.
I am not going to enter into any prolonged discussion. We had that last week and the record must speak for itself. The only comment I am going to make on what the Minister of Agriculture said this afternoon regarding the British agreement and the settlement that was made in May of last year is that on the 22nd of May the Minister of Trade and Commerce met the Chancellor of the Exchequer in London and, as is indicated by the papers that have been tabled in this house and which are a matter of record on Hansard, he came back with an agreed minute expressing the opinion of the British government that the obligations under the agreement had been fully met. On May 30 the cabinet of Canada authorized the Minister of Trade and Commerce to send a message to the British which in effect accepted that position.
The point I am making is that if the government felt at that time that the British had not fulfilled their obligations fully then, instead of sending that message of acceptance through the Minister of Trade and Commerce,
Supply-Agriculture
the proper thing to have done would have been to have said: We are not satisfied with your proposal or, if the minister likes it better, we are not satisfied with your view. We are not accepting it. We are asking that the negotiations continue. Then the situation would have been entirely different. There could be no finality at the London conference. That was made very clear by both ministers, and indeed by the Prime Minister. The finality was reached in Ottawa.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask my hon. friend a question? It probably would relieve both of us from the necessity of discussing it further. Did the Minister of Trade and Commerce not say in the discussions the other day that what he said in Great Britain was that it would be necessary for the minister who had negotiated the contract to come over?


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, he did, and he put it into Hansard twice.


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: Certainly. Go back and read your Hansard.


Major James William Coldwell: I have.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I can read it too if you want it read.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister will have to show me that in Hansard because I have followed this debate very carefully.


Mr. Johnston:: Is it revised or unrevised?


An hon. Member:: The answer is yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will not make the obvious remark in reply to that.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Not punctuated properly.


James Garfield Gardiner: Go on with your speech. I will look it up.


Major James William Coldwell: I am willing to give the minister time to look it up. Certainly I have no recollection of that statement having been made.


James Garfield Gardiner: You should have because you made him read it all the way through.


George Alexander Drew: May I suggest that we take time for the minister to read this. It will be useful.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar has the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just hold on to the floor. But how will Hansard record the lapse of time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Don't get excited. It is here.


Charles Edward Johnston: Should there not be a time limit on this? Page the Minister of Trade and Commerce.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: I had it buried amongst other papers. It is to be found on page 1072 of Hansard for March 8 about two-thirds of the way down the page. It reads:
I told those present that we looked to the minister who negotiated the agreement in the first place to negotiate the settlement, and that all I could do was to carry back a report of the discussions.
Now do you admit it?


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not have to read it. The minister has read it and he has read it correctly.


An hon. Member:: Are you satisfied?


Major James William Coldwell: What I want to say is that I do not think the minister can interpret those words in the manner in which he is interpreting them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, no, no. You can laugh. Let me read the whole paragraph and I think we will get the context and then the meaning.


James Garfield Gardiner: If you read it all it will be much better than what I read.


Major James William Coldwell: It may be. I have not read it yet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: I thought you said you had. I thought you said you followed it very closely.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: Just a minute. There was
no occasion for the rather silly haw-hawing from the other side when I said I had not read it. I have not read it now. I remember hearing it when it was spoken in the house. I have not seen it since, but let me read it. The minister says it will put the matter in a better light from his point of view. If it does, I am simply being fair to him by giving the context, and that is what I try to do. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I am entitled to keep the record straight so far as I am concerned. I may say that the discussions about the disposal of the 1950 crop took place before there was any mention of the five year pool. That matter was discussed and settled and then discussions were opened on the five year pool, against our wishes really. I made it clear at the outset I had no authority to discuss or settle. I told those present that we looked to the minister who negotiated the agreement in the first place to negotiate the settlement, and that all I could do was carry back a report of the discussions. Nevertheless when the discussions continued I got a very positive statement from the chancellor of the exchequer, and there were other ministers present. I had to take their views back
]Mr. Johnston.]
to my colleagues as the position of the United Kingdom government. I reported that position to them. The decision, if there was any decision, was made after X returned.
What is the interpretation? Obviously the interpretation is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that he had not negotiated the original agreement and that the minister who had negotiated it should be in on the settlement.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I just point out one other thing in relation to it. In the discussions the other evening, when we were talking back and forth across the floor, I made it very plain that that was the question at issue in the discussion overseas. The Minister of Trade and Commerce took the position that the minister who negotiated the arrangement should come back over to complete the negotiations.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Fair:: That is not stated here.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes it is; and I am repeating it whether or not it is there. That is the position the Minister of Trade and Commerce took. He came back and made that representation and said there was no use my going over because they had already made up their minds what they were going to do.


Major James William Coldwell: Very well. I was just going to say the Minister of Trade and Commerce came back. Apparently he made the statement the minister has just mentioned, and the cabinet decided that the minister who negotiated the agreement, the Minister of Agriculture, should not go to Britain to negotiate the final agreement. The final agreement outlined in the memorandum was then approved by the cabinet, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce so notified the government of Britain on May 30, 1950. Those are the facts.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend will have to read more of Hansard in order to get all the answers. He has not read it all yet.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not interrupt the minister, so let us not have these interruptions. When the position is so clear let us-not becloud it. Let me put it on record again. On May 22 the Minister of Trade and Commerce met the chancellor of the exchequer and a committee in London. On that date, whether willingly or unwillingly, the minister discussed this matter with the chancellor of the exchequer. A minute was agreed upon, and that minute states very clearly that it might be considered that all obligations under this agreement had been fulfilled. The minister returned to Canada. A week elapsed. During that week no representatives of the farm organizations were called in to discuss

the matter; no members of the wheat advisory board were called in to discuss it. On May 30 the Minister of Trade and Commerce was authorized to send a message to the chancellor of the exchequer saying the Canadian government accepted the view expressed by the government of Britain in the minute sent to this country. That is the point I am making; and while the Minister of Trade and Commerce may have said something else in London, it was not fulfilled in Ottawa during that week from May 22 to May 30. So I express the hope that we shall hear no more of these suggestions that the British more or less welshed on the agreement. If I may say so, I think I agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I believe the Minister of Agriculture said it also, that it would have been better if a further payment had been made at that time. But in the final analysis the government of Canada is responsible for that payment not having been made. They did not endeavour to negotiate further when this document was brought back from London.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, Mr. Chairman, is my hon. friend saying that the remark I made a few moments ago was false?


Major James William Coldwell: No, I did not say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The chancellor of the
exchequer definitely said, according to the report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that they were not prepared to discuss that question further. Can the hon. member imagine the Minister of Agriculture travelling all the way across the ocean to discuss something they had already said they would not discuss?


Major James William Coldwell: Of course that is what the minister did ultimately.


James Garfield Gardiner: The minister did that after the gentleman who made that suggestion was not in the government.


Major James William Coldwell: This business of making statements regarding ministers of other countries, when we have to negotiate with the governments of those countries, is pretty serious, I think. I am not suggesting that the Minister of Agriculture could go over when his own government decided they would accept the British position. What I am saying is that we have two governments, the government of the United Kingdom and the government of Canada. We like to think that in this commonwealth of nations all our countries are equal, none being subservient to any other. If we are equal to one another, then the Canadian government should have assumed that equality and said, "That may be your view. It is not our view, and we
Supply-Agriculture
want to negotiate this matter further." No individual in any government has the right to prevent further negotiations, and I am certain that if further negotiations had been demanded they would have taken place. So let us stop making insinuations.
I am going to follow the example set by the Minister of Agriculture and not go into other matters in connection with this agreement. I want to reiterate what I said when I first rose, that we want to see this appropriation passed expeditiously, though we do not think it is enough. The minister will remember that in August, 1946, when this agreement was under discussion I made the statement, which I repeat now, that if through government policy the costs of production rose during the lifetime of this agreement, it was the duty of the government of Canada, not the government of another country, to make a compensatory adjustment out of the revenue of Canada. This is an inadequate instalment, insufficient but nonetheless something I think the house should support under the circumstances.


Alphonse Fournier: Before the debate continues, Mr. Chairman, I want to submit that the amendment of the leader of the opposition is out of order. It reads:
That consideration of this item be deferred until the committee has been informed as to the principle under which a payment of $65 million is to be made and the method by which the said amount has been arrived at.
If you will look at Beauchesne, third edition, citation 480 on page 178, you will see that it reads:
The only motion allowed, when a resolution is under consideration in committee of supply, is that the amount be reduced or that the chairman leave the chair . . .
Each resolution can only be dealt with by being agreed to, reduced, negatived, superseded, or, by leave, withdrawn, and the withdrawal can be made although the decision of the committee has been taken upon amendments proposed to the resolution. Here, the power of the committee ceases. It is not allowable to attach a condition or an expression of opinion to a vote or to change the destination of a grant.
And the following citation, 481:
A proposed resolution may be allowed to stand over with general consent until another occasion, but if it has been regularly proposed from the chair and discussed, no motion for its postponement is regular because there is no period to which it can be postponed.
If you carefully read the amendment you will see that it does not fall under this citation, in that it does not reduce or supersede the resolution, or ask leave that it be withdrawn. I submit, therefore, that the amendment should be declared out of order.


The Deputy Chairman:: Do other hon.
members wish to speak on the point of order?

Supply-Agriculture


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do you not think the wording of the amendment would bring it clearly-


Jean-François Pouliot: Would you please read it again?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I shall read the
amendment again.
That consideration of this item be deferred until the committee has been informed as to the principle under which a payment of $65 million is to be made and the method by which the said amount has been arrived at.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was going to ask, Mr. Chairman, whether it is not your opinion that the effect of the wording of this amendment is such as to bring it within the citation referred to by the Minister of Public Works which states that a resolution can only be dealt with by being agreed to, reduced, negatived, superseded or, by leave, withdrawn. It is the word "superseded" to which I should like to direct your attention.
This amendment does not seek to postpone the resolution to a certain period or to defer it absolutely, nor does it express an opinion contrary to the subject matter of the resolution. The resolution is for the granting of $65 million for a certain purpose. The motion made by my leader merely asks that it be superseded for the time being until a discussion has taken place, and the principle has been established upon which this is to be granted. Then a discussion could be undertaken as to whether the granting of the actual sum asked for, namely $65 million, is justified; so I submit the motion is not out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I submit that the amendment is completely out of order, and for this reason. A distinction should be made between an increase and a decrease in the amount which is to be voted by parliament. If the leader of the opposition and the member for Rosetown-Biggar had moved and seconded-


Major James William Coldwell: Pardon me, I did not move anything.


Jean-François Pouliot: No; I said if they had.


Major James William Coldwell: But I did not.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, and I want the hon.
gentleman to be as gentle as he normally is. I assume that the leader of the opposition might have sponsored an amendment, and that the member for Rosetown-Biggar might have seconded it.


Major James William Coldwell: But he did not.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know. This is mere supposition. Let us suppose that the said amendment had been to decrease the amount of $65 million. The said amendment of the leader of the opposition and the leader of the C.C.F.
[The Deputy Chairman.]
would have been to decrease the amount of $65 million to $1. Then, I would have said "This is the best political achievement of both of them." I will add this-that I would have supported that amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why not move it yourself?


Jean-François Pouliot: For $1, yes, but not $65
million. Let us divide $1 between 260,000 great westerners, and we shall see the result.
Now that the house is in a good mood, and seems disposed to accept a few words of truth and consideration in accordance with the rules of the house, I shall remind the leader of the opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. group, jointly and severally, that according to the purest and safest British doctrine, no member can propose, by amendment or otherwise, a larger expenditure than the one that is submitted to the house by the government after the approval of His Excellency the Governor General. If the leader of the opposition has moved an amendment which has won the support of his closest opponent, the leader of the C.C.F.-


Major James William Coldwell: No, I am opposed to it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I am too.


Major James William Coldwell: Then, we agree.


Jean-François Pouliot: If we all agree on the amendment, let us express our opinion that we are against it. But I come to this point, and the leader of the opposition understands my point before I have expressed it. I want to torture him a little by -not coming to my conclusion at once, and I say that in the friendliest manner. It is that he is too subtle a politician to make a move to reduce the amount of the appropriation. I challenge him to say that he wants to send it back to a committee or something like that, to have it reduced. He will never say that. He wants it increased.


Mr. Brooks:: He wants it justified.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is hair-splitting. Let us be sincere and honest about this big amount. I am not a mind reader, but there is no one in this house, with perhaps the exception of the member for Rosetown-Biggar, who has not read in the mind of the leader of the opposition that he wants a larger amount of money offered to the westerner than the appropriation.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I believe I have heard sufficient to make a ruling at this point.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words before you do so.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, I was just concluding. I would say that, otherwise, the

move by the hon. gentleman who leads His Majesty's loyal apposition in this house would be meaningless, and he is much above that.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that what we are discussing is one of the annotations, comments, and precedents and not one of the standing orders. It does refer to a practice that has been established, and I recognize that. These annotations result from discussions which take place, and decisions that are made. They change from time to time in view of the opinion of the house as to the manner in which debate can best be considered.
I would point out that the motion which is now before the committee is a motion that is consistent with what is frequently done while the house is in committee. Over and over again, the proposal is made that an item stand until further information is available. Frequently, that proposal is accepted and items do stand in that way. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the motion now before you is simply a motion which makes it possible for the members to express an opinion entirely consistent with the practice which has grown up here, and which has been regularized by acceptance over a long time.
There is one thing about the arguments of the hon. member for Temiscouata. Undoubtedly he contributes greatly to the good feeling within the chamber. As he himself has said, the committee seemed to be in good humour. I will say quite frankly that no one contributes more to the good humour than he does.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


George Alexander Drew: Sometimes, of course, it is difficult to follow the exact train of the argument, but the result is excellent. In this particular case the hon. member for Temiscouata undoubtedly has produced an atmosphere in which a subject of this kind can be discussed in a friendly and congenial way. In spite of our growing friendship, I must admit I was slightly startled by his suggestion that at this distance he could read my mind. I have no intention of moving to reduce this item to $1, for a reason which is clear. The motion to reduce this item to $1 would imply that we had information which made it possible to suggest that $1 was the proper figure. No such information is before us. That is the reason I have presented this motion.
I will satisfy the curiosity of the hon. member for Temiscouata by informing him that if this motion is not accepted, I certainly do not intend to support the main motion. In view of the fact that information is not available, I do not propose to move that it be reduced to $1 because that
Supply-Agriculture
would imply that I was recognizing that we had sufficient information to make that decision and thought that only $1 should be paid.
I have made it clear that I believe that the people in every part of Canada wish to deal fairly with this problem. I am satisfied that the members of the committee require information before voting. My motion is simply for the purpose of carrying out a practice long established, that of seeking the deferment of the consideration of the item until we have the information upon which that consideration can be made.


Alphonse Fournier: If the hon. gentleman wishes to have information, it is not to be obtained by deferring consideration of the item and taking it away from the committee. We are to defer what? Consideration of that item which provides for an amount of $65 million to be paid into the pool. If you stop the committee from discussing that item by your motion, I do not know how you will get the information. The Minister of Agriculture is here and he is ready to answer any question. He gave you notice of his willingness to discuss the matter. He said: If you want to discuss this matter at length, I am ready to do so; and I will answer any question that is asked. Perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops and the leader of the opposition might agree on their stand as to the legality of their motion. One says that the motion is in order if we consider the word supersede in the citation. I cannot agree. By what does he want to supersede the $65 million? Does he just want to defer discussion on the item and replace it by something else? If so, what? He has not made any concrete suggestion as to what he wished to have. The leader of the opposition says that every day in committee of supply we have items stand. Certainly we do, Mr. Chairman, by agreement. But you never had an item stand unless it was by unanimous consent. And it is not done by formal motion. But this is a formal motion by which he says that he will have this item deferred, because he has not enough information. While it is deferred we will have to take up other items. I am just wondering how the hon. gentleman would1 get the information he desires. When we are so ready to give that information, I would suggest that we proceed with the giving of the information, and that the motion be declared out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question of the
leader of the opposition?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: No.

Supply-Agriculture


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. member At six o'clock the Acting Speaker (Mr. wishes to ask a question of the leader of Beaudoin) resumed the chair and the house die opposition, the latter must give his took recess, consent.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know that. I do not want to force any question upon him.


George Alexander Drew: I have no objection to any
question being asked.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman.
Having noted that he said he did not want the item to be reduced, may I ask if he is ready to say that he does not want it to be increased and therefore it should be voted as it is?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think that the
point of order raised by the acting leader of the house is well taken. As a matter of fact, citations 480, 481 and 482 of Beauchesne, third edition, to be found at page 178, are quite clear on the point. The object of the amendment is clearly to defer, not to supersede. In any event, I will read the citations to which I have just referred. They are as follows:
480.	The only motion allowed, when a resolution is under consideration in committee of supply, is that the amount be reduced or that the chairman leave the chair . . .
Each resolution can only be dealt with by being agreed to, reduced, negatived, superseded, or, by leave, withdrawn, and the withdrawal can be made although the decision of the committee has been taken upon amendments proposed to the resolution. Here, the power of the committee ceases.
It is not allowable to attach a condition or an expression of opinion to a vote or to change the destination of a grant.
481.	A proposed resolution may be allowed to stand over with general consent-
I should like to draw the attention of the committee to those three words "with general consent." It is true that it is the practice of this house to have resolutions stand over, but it is only done with general consent. The citation continues:
-until another occasion, but if it has been regularly proposed from the chair-
And this is the case in this instance.
-and discussed, no motion for its postponement is regular because there is no period to which it can be postponed.
482.	When a resolution is proposed in a committee of the whole (not of supply),-
I wish to draw the attention of the committee to those three words as well, "not of supply".
-every amendment may be moved which might be moved to such a resolution, if proposed in the house .itself.
In view of these citations that I have just read, I have no alternative but to declare this amendment out of order.
	I


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 115, to incorporate Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company-Mr. Laing-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section l1-Incorporation.
Mr. Cruickshank:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in connection with this bill. I would call attention to a heading which appeared in a newspaper and which I feel is perhaps applicable to some who, as yet, have not seen the advantage in our endeavour not only to build up British Columbia but to build Canada as a whole. This article bears a Massachusetts dateline, but I believe it would apply elsewhere. The heading is, "774 Vote for Man Dead Two Weeks". It struck me that this might apply to those who as yet have not realized that there is such a thing as the province of British Columbia, and who do not know just how worth while it is to build up that province, thereby improving the entire economy of Canada, and particularly that of Alberta.
In the last couple of years some of us have been accused of conducting a filibuster. This is what the Vancouver Sun of March 15 has to say on the subject:
Filibuster Without Guns
British Columbia members of parliament are fighting in Commons to guarantee an oil industry in this province. And they rightly object to their struggle being dubbed a "filibuster."
They want parliament to make sure that any oil pipe line from Alberta to the coast is routed through B.C. and Vancouver so Canada will get a crack at the oil1 flow before U.S. does. They're opposed to incorporating any company that would skip B.C. to enter the U.S. through southern Alberta.
If it takes a hundred speeches to pound home the legitimate economic interests of B.C. that still isn't a "filibuster."
And, mark you, this is the Vancouver Sun; this is not a section of the press that believes in the building up of British Columbia only.
The word nowadays means "organized obstruction tactics by dilatory motions or artifices."
Perhaps B.C. members should use the word against supporters of U.S. routes. They could remind parliament that originally a filibuster was an armed raid against a peaceful country to secure loot. They could argue that companies which propose to pipe Canadian oil first to Seattle and Portland just lack the guns.

Vancouver got an Indication this week of what a pipe line from Edmonton oilfields through the Yellowhead pass to this city could mean. British American Oil Company announced it would build a $10 million refinery here.
And may I add that if hon. members were to check Hansard they would find that that is exactly what those of us who have been fighting this battle for two years have been saying. This $10 million is just a beginning in the development of our province. It is unfortunate that this heading had not appeared earlier.
It might be too expensive to supply such a plant by tanker from Seattle or Portland.
The Yellowhead route also opens tremendous prospects for the development of B.C.'s Peace river oilfields.
This is of particular significance to some, so I shall repeat it:
The Yellowhead route also opens tremendous prospects for the development of B.C.'s Peace river oilfields. A major discovery there could be drained off by a feeder line running due south to join the main line in central B.C. That couldn't be done if the main line ran through Alberta.
Nor have parliamentary supporters of the U.S. route backed up their claim that a line running 400 miles south through Alberta then swinging west to the coast would be cheaper than an all-B.C. line. The B.C. route follows the C.N.R.'s easy grade over the Rockies for a direct 750 miles to Vancouver.
Though parliament hasn't the power to fix actual routes, it needn't encourage any route that skips B.C. It needn't incorporate any company proposing a U.S. route when already incorporated companies are pledged to B.C. pipe lines.
And all M.P.'s should remember that Vancouver is the west coast port of Canada as well as of B.C.
I am very pleased to have taken part in the development set out in this editorial, and to have had associated with me other members from British Columbia. I know hon. members from other provinces who in the last two years came to our aid will pardon me if I do not make reference to them. Time does not permit me to cover the ground in full- because this is one of the bills I want to see passed tonight.
However I should like first to refer to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), a most courteous, courageous and cultured member. Representing the constituency of West Kootenay, he represents probably the second most beautiful riding in British Columbia. May I suggest to hon. members, particularly those from Ontario, who have not had the privilege of seeing the beauties of the Pacific coast, that if they have the opportunity to visit West Kootenay they should pay special attention to the delightful little town of Nakusp.
Then I would make special reference to the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), whose constituency we regard as a climatic paradise, and the hub of interior British Columbia. May I add that, in a small way,
Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line they also raise fruit. Then, from the famous Okanagan, the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones) came to our help. Some hon. members who may have credited the Fraser valley with producing the magnificent apples not only displayed to the house but sold throughout eastern Canada may not realize that the credit belongs to the constituency of Yale.
Then I move on to Comox-Alberni. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson), whose only fault may be his over-generosity, helped us ably. I now come to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), that persistent and methodical member who displayed his persistency and his methodical effort last year and the year before in endeavouring to build up his city, the third largest in Canada and, in the opinion of those of us from British Columbia, the most beautiful on the North American continent.
I must not forget my hon. friend from Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) with his keen and-I cannot very well pronounce this word; I shall have to look at my notes to make sure of it-analytical mind.
Those are a few. I might make reference to the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), who acquitted himself so well in the 29th battalion, and who supported the west, particularly British Columbia, both last year and the year before. Perhaps he will forgive my not saying any more about him. I am sure however that I may be forgiven for making mention of one other gentleman, one who had the keenest mind of any in the House of Commons, whose mind was unsurpassed by that of any since my time in parliament. I refer to the former member from Calgary West, Mr. Art. Smith.
I could go on for hours in this connection. However those of us in British Columbia are particularly interested at this time in transportation. Years ago we were told that east is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet. However by persistent efforts of people in British Columbia and Alberta, with a certain amount of assistance from Saskatchewan, we have at last attained at least a partial adjustment on our freight structure, through the board of transport commissioners. These pipe lines will be part of our transportation system and matters concerning them will have to come before the board in due course.
Many hon. members may not know that many years ago British Columbia pioneered in a new form of transportation. The only camel transportation in the dominion operated out of Cariboo. Many newcomers or those who have not studied our history probably do not know that in the early days of the gold rush in the Cariboo there was a camel train operating.

Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line
Many of us realize how fortunate we are in living in a province like British Columbia with its many possibilities. Incidentally, I might mention that I have been called to task in connection with another matter when I described certain people within my riding in a certain way. I was naturally interested in them because after all they are part of British Columbia. They were not only endeavouring to build, they were endeavouring to help us bring in cheaper gas and cheaper oil to the province and the Pacific coast at a time when it is most needed.
I do not know whether these papers have reported me correctly or not, but I would like to refer to the Vancouver Daily Province. This is a fine family journal and I wish I was wealthy enough to see that each and every member of this house received complimentary copies for life. This particular issue is the March 17 issue, a most appropriate date for the hon. member for Fort William and the hon. member for Battle River. I am sure that they will appreciate the details of this article because they have a far keener knowledge of these things than I. The heading of this article reads:
That's what George says. Valley phone girls prettiest.
The largest city in my riding has a population of 6,000, although the mayor would probably like me to say it has a population of 6,500. Two girls on the Vancouver exchange disputed my statement. Then along comes another paper published in Winnipeg, the Winnipeg Tribune with this heading:
Manitoba "Hello Girls" ready for M.P.'s beauty challenge.
I am leaving for the west coast tonight but I shall not have time to stop in to visit the Winnipeg exchange. But I do hope they have a delegation down at the station to meet me, especially after the pictures I see on the front page of this newspaper.
I do not want to take up any more time in discussing this particular bill. I am proud of the part that I was able to play in connection with this bill which I hope will go through tonight. I believe in my own province and I believe in Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I want to say
just a word or two on the general sections while we are in committee and I want to echo what has been said by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. On behalf of all those members whom he has mentioned, including myself, I want to express our appreciation of his generous remarks.
I should like to refer to some of the information which was given in connection with this bill in the special committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and which
rMr. Cruickshank.]
I think vindicated one hundred per cent the arguments which have been put forward and the battle which has been put up for the adoption of a "Canada first" principle in connection with these lines, whether they be oil or gas pipe lines. We have simply asked that they be built through Canada first before entering another foreign country on their way to their market.
Witnesses on behalf of the company and engineers appeared before the committee and stated that the Yellowhead route is feasible and economical. This company proposes to build a line from Edmonton to Vancouver through the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia exclusively. It will follow the Yellowhead route along the main line of the Canadian National Railways to Kamloops, from there to Merritt, thence to Brookmere, then down the Kettle valley railway line to the Fraser valley at Hope, and from there to Vancouver.
They told us that it was expected that some 2,000 men would be employed in the construction of the line. That is a fact that should be noted. It was estimated that approximately 150 men would be employed in the maintenance of the line. That means that 150 Canadians from Alberta and British Columbia will find what will be close to permanent employment. It was stated that approximately $50,000 per annum would be spent for materials, paint, hardware and so on required in connection with the maintenance of the line.


Frank Exton Lennard: How long will it take to build?


Edmund Davie Fulton: They told us that if they
obtained the approval of the board of transport commissioners this year they would expect to have it completed-I am speaking from memory-by June, 1952. Finally, they told us there would be at least three pumping stations initially to maintain a flow of 70,000 barrels, but as the capacity was stepped up, as it could be, to approaching 200,000 barrels the required additional pumping stations would be constructed.
These facts should be kept in mind in considering these requests for charters for pipe lines. I repeat that on this comparatively short line of 700 miles, that is comparatively short when compared with the length of a pipe line from Alberta to Montreal, approximately 150 Canadians will receive permanent employment, 2,000 will be employed in building the line, and in addition there will be those employed in manufacturing the materials necessary for maintenance.
I ask hon. members to bear these facts in mind when considering future applications

Private Bills
to incorporate companies of this kind. With these facts before us I think the insistence upon the principle of "Canada first" becomes much more important.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Chairman, I suppose if not too many speeches are made this bill will pass quite rapidly. My interest in this bill lies in the fact that the line will pass through the Cariboo district. The government of British Columbia, through the attorney general, the Hon. Gordon S. Wismer, has stated that the proposed line will pass through the Yellowhead pass and on down through the populous centres of British Columbia to Vancouver by way of Prince George, McBride, Quesnel and Williams Lake.
May I say to hon. members from Ontario that they have an interest in the route which this pipe line will take. In 1862 a party of fortune seekers set out from Ontario over land and proceeded to the gold fields of Cariboo. They crossed the prairie in Red river carts and travelled in canoes. They got to Fort Edmonton and from Fort Edmonton they walked to the Rocky mountains where they discovered the Yellowhead pass. They walked through the Yellowhead pass, over the route this pipe line will take, and took boats on the Fraser river to the Cariboo of those days.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley said that camel trains were used out of Cranbrook in the early days. He is making a great mistake. Camels were used on the historic Cariboo road. They proceeded from Lillooet some hundreds of miles to the gold fields at Barkerville. As I understand it, the building of this pipe line means that it will be a common carrier. It is supported by seven of the leading oil companies, and it will be a great public utility that will add vastly to the industrial development of British Columbia and of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Powers of company.
George Alexander Cruickshank: What is the amendment to this section?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: It reads:
Provided that the main pipe line or lines for transmission or transportation of oil shall be located entirely within Canada;
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 7 to 11 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 131, respecting a certain patent application of George R. Hanks.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that was passed by the Senate after going through their committee on private bills. It also has had the approval of the Secretary of State and the commissioner of patents. However, I want to explain the purpose of the bill. It is simply to validate a patent application filed in the Canadian patent office by one George Hanks, on July 16, 1947. In 1947, as hon. members will recall, parliament passed certain amendments to the Patent Act. One of them had as its purpose to permit the filing of patent applications in Canada by nationals of countries which accord reciprocal privileges where the normal time within which such applications should have been filed had expired during the war years.
Section 28A stipulated two conditions, however, attached to the receiving of such patent applications by the commissioner of patents. First, such applications had to be filed not later than the 15th day of November, 1947. Second, the application for a patent had to request the commissioner of patents to extend the time by special request. In the case of George Hanks the facts are these. He applied for and obtained a patent on his invention in the United States patent office under date of April 23, 1946. Since he had filed more than a year before that date in the United States, and since he had not filed his application in Canada before the issue of the United States patent, under our law he was forbidden to file an application in this country and obtain a patent.
After the legislation was passed in 1947 George Hanks through his attorneys requested that he be allowed to file an application in Canada. The attorneys filed before November of 1947 but through some mistake they did not accompany the application with a so-called formal request to come under section 28A. The bill would now allow George Hanks to have the right to validate his application in Canada in spite of the fact that there was not this so-called formal letter requesting that he be given the advantages of section 28A. As I said before, the commissioner of patents and the Secretary of State have approved. My purpose is to ask that the bill be allowed to pass so that it may be sent to the standing committee on private bills.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What was the patent for?

Private Bills


Jean-Thomas Richard: My hon. friend probably has not read the bill. It refers to a chain dredge bucket and method of forming.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Abraham Tarontchick, otherwise known as Abraham Turner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Mabel Caroline Lay Redburn McCormick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Jack Harold Frederick Grater.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Kathleen Merle McCullough McCallum.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Mary Margaret Urquhart Cuthbert Gilman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Margaret Isabel Ward Green.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Rejeanne Laliberte Tinker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Frederick John Pratt,*

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Arthur Frederick Albin Turner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Maria Silvaggio Mazzalongo.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Jacqueline Yvonne Suzanne Stucker	Grant.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Ethelbert Deniston Joseph Bartholomew.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Ivy Elizabeth Whitehead Simpson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Evelyn Elizabeth Hulbig Wilks.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Margaret Cameron Williams.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bills read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



BORDER PIPELINE CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robinson for the second reading of Bill No. 118, to incorporate Border Pipeline Corporation.
George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to say very much in connection with this measure. Probably

to justify my own stand and that of some of the other members in previous discussions in our endeavour to build up Canada, I should quote one or two authorities who I believe agree with what I have said.


Mr. Blue:: Who is "our"?


George Alexander Cruickshank: As I said the other night, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that have made western Canada so great, particularly my own province, is the fact all the leading citizens of Bruce county in the great province of Ontario left there and came west.


Donald Buchanan Blue: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Cruickshank: My hon. friend probably has not realized that I said "all the leading citizens of Bruce county."


Donald Buchanan Blue: I am going west next year.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to quote one or
two authorities who I think are in accord with our stand on maintaining for Canada for all time the resources that were given to us such as oil and gas that require very little to develop. I quoted authorities the other night and I shall quote them again. I am quoting from Hansard of May 5, 1950, at pages 2229 to 2230. I said the other night that I did not know of any better authority that I could use in speaking of Canada as a whole. And mind you, Mr. Speaker, we maintain that the stand we are taking is taken not only to build up our own province but to build up Canada as a whole. As I said the other night, no matter which company builds the pipe line, either gas or oil, it goes through the centre of my riding and the riding of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), and it will be satisfactory to us. It does not matter to us which company builds the line. I do not think anybody has a better right to speak on behalf of Canada than the authority whom I shall quote. He speaks as we do, not for the building up of just British Columbia, not merely the Fraser valley, Quadra, Kamloops or Kootenay West but Canada as a whole. I shall quote the Prime Minister who spoke on the date I mentioned, at pages 2229 to 2230 of Hansard: I am not going to suggest that the protracted debate in this parliament about the desirability of an all-Canadian pipe line for the gas and oil of Alberta has been a waste of time.
I want to emphasize how closely that was borne out by the editorial I read from the Vancouver Sun, published in the third largest city in the Dominion of Canada, the Pacific outlet to all our markets in the Far East and the Pacific supply point for our navy. I continue with the quotation:
It has aroused public opinion as to the desirability of doing that if it is possible. I would expect that that would not be lost from the point of view of the

members of the board of transport commissioners and that they would not lightly disregard the unanimous desires of Canadians that their own territory be used to the greatest possible advantage.
I am very proud to be a follower of a great Canadian, in spite of the majestic silence of so many of his supporters, who makes a statement like that. I continue with the quotation:
I would expect that when they got an application and before they approved anything they would want to be shown that there is or there is not a practicable way of doing it without going out of Canada. I would expect that they will require the applicants to satisfy them that surveys of the various routes mentioned' in this discussion have been made.
Again may 1 point out, as was emphasized by the hon. member for Kamloops previously this evening, in speaking of the witnesses who aippeared before the committee the other day,
I do not happen to be a member of that committee. That was very well taken care of last year for reasons best known to some who thought it was not desirable that the member for Fraser Valley should be a member of that committee. I must admit, however, that British Columbia was well represented on that committee. For the first time in our history we had at least five members on that committee. I continue with the quotation:
I do not claim to know enough about the topographical conditions, about the mountain passes, to be able to formulate an opinion as to whether or not they present insuperable difficulties. But if I were a member of a body charged by parliament with the responsibility of making that kind of decision and were called upon to exercise my judgment, I would want pretty full evidence that it could not be done in Canada before I would put my signature to a plan or project that was not going to be carried out in Canada.
That is the Prime Minister speaking on May 5, 1950. I shall quote some other authorities now, Mr. Speaker. I could take time to tell you about Iran, but I do not think it is necessary. Many of you read the papers,
I know. You are all equally proud, as I am, of the traditions of the British navy, so ably followed by our own Royal Canadian Navy. We had a gentleman here who two weeks ago I understand was in Iran, and we read in the newspapers that about one-sixth of the oil used by the British navy comes from that country. I do not think many of us would be sitting here tonight if we had not had a little assistance from the British navy in. the past. As I say, we read in the press that one-sixth of the oil required by the British navy comes from Iran. I do not think we need to worry so much about acts of a>
few saboteurs of any province in the dominion plunging us into a third world war. I am no authority on external affairs, but it would seem to me that what is happening in Iran today is of extreme importance to every Canadian.
20. 1951
Border Pipeline Corporation
Any day some little extra combustion over there may plunge us into a third world war. So in asking for the building of an allCanadian route we are at least trying to bring oil from one of the greatest oil fields on the North American continent, and we hope some day one of the greatest of the world, to the Pacific coast, where the navy can at least have fuel on British soil without any treaties or obligations that may be broken merely by the assassination of a certain leader.
I do not think that some of my eastern friends realize just how important this oil and gas line is to the Dominion of Canada as a whole. In that connection I might quote another authority, a man who I think knows a great deal about the oil situation, and certainly about production needed for national defence in Canada. I am quoting from Hansard of March 16, 1950, at pages 791 and 792. I apologize to no Canadian for quoting this hon. gentleman who has the confidence of the people of Canada for his great organizing ability, which he has demonstrated to the people of Canada and to the whole world. In a time of national stress he saw that the guns and the tanks, and all the munitions of war were made available. As I said, I want to quote from pages 791 and 792, which contain the answer given to the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart). The answer is as follows:


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The answer to the first question is
that I have no knowledge of any representations from the province of Saskatchewan in that connection. In answer to the second question I would say that I spoke on this subject at the last session of parliament, and pointed out that the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act is designed to protect Canadian consumers. It is necessary under the act for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to give a certificate to the effect that the present and foreseeable future needs of Canada are protected before any exports of electricity or gas are permitted.
I continue:
It has been suggested frequently in the current debate that gas will be sent to the United States from the pipe line before the pipe line reaches Vancouver. I stated last session that that would not be permitted. I know from discussions with the sponsors of the pipe line that it is not proposed to undertake any such export.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any higher authorities in the Dominion of Canada whom I could quote than the two right hon. members I have just quoted. I believe that if nothing else justifies the stand taken by a few of us, not only to see that it was piped within Canada but we are hoping by our efforts to bring home to the people of Canada as a whole what this means, then those quotations justify our stand.

Border Pipeline Corporation
As I mentioned a moment before, and as I am sure the member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), who is an old military man, and any other former military man, will appreciate what is happening in Iran today is significant. I am sure they will endeavour with us to see that the main supply is maintained in Canada.
Possibly I should justify our extreme interest in our own province. I should like to quote briefly from a book by Bruce Hutchison. At one time he was a member of the parliamentary press gallery. He has the good fortune to come from the province of British Columbia. In common with another famous newspaperman who used to adorn the gallery, Torchy Anderson, he spends most of his time fishing on Vancouver island. It is an excellent place to fish. When Bruce is not writing books he writes delightful stories for the Saturday Evening Post. I am giving him a little plug because he is a great Canadian. This is part of the reason, Mr. Speaker, why we want to see that pipe line maintained within Canada. I am only going to quote a paragraph or two of the book "The Fraser", page 205:
This outshoot, which forms the south bank of the Fraser, extends less than a hundred miles from the sea. It is so small in Canada, and so fertile, that every yard of it will soon be cultivated. This land from the sea to the north-south barrier of the coast range we call the Fraser valley. The Fraser has cut a valley over 800 miles long and much of it, in the interior, will produce crops when it is irrigated, but in the vocabulary of British Columbia, the Fraser valley means only the stretch from the river delta to the mountains.
This arable space of some 550,000 acres, including the north bank, is one of British Columbia's major possessions. It supports about 100,000 people. It provides the milk for Vancouver. It produces vegetables, some meat (especially feeders from the interior ranches), the hops for British Columbia's beer, small fruits, tree fruits, honey, and pelts from the fur farms. About $15 million worth of agricultural products a year come out of the soil the river laid down here in the leisure of aeons.
I do not want to quote all of it, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to cover the Fraser valley because it is not only an important part of Canada, Mr. Speaker, it is also the district through which this pipe line will go.


George Matheson Murray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is quoting literature dealing with the Yellowhead pass route and the Fraser river route. It has nothing to do with the bill under consideration.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking about the Yellowhead route at all. If my hon. friend was awake he would know that I am speaking about a different route. That bill was passed long ago. I am speaking about a company whose pipe line would


take the oil of Canada through the United States at Kingsgate. That shows the hon. member is not listening.


George Matheson Murray: On a point of order-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just a minute; you have had three years to make a speech and you have not done it yet.


George Matheson Murray: I insist that the reading of a book dealing with-


George Alexander Cruickshank: What is the point of order?


George Matheson Murray: -the Yellowhead pass route is not in order.


Mr. Speaker:: When an hon. member rises to a point of order, I think he should be allowed to state it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: By all means, Mr. Speaker.


George Matheson Murray: The book in question, written by a very distinguished Canadian writer, sets out to tell the story of the Fraser river. The Fraser river rises in my constituency at the foot of mount Robson. It flows northerly for some distance, and then comes around by the beautiful city of Prince George, sweeps on majestically by Quesnel, Williams Lake, and on to the open sea. The whole book is one of the outstanding works of the year. Just to keep the record straight, and give Mr. Hutchison due credit for having written a fine book, he deals with the Yellowhead pass. He tells how the young adventurers from Ontario, the overlanders of 1862 travelled from Ontario clear through the Rocky mountains out to the Cariboo gold fields; that is the whole heart of the book, and it should be quoted in full or not at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The bill before the house concerns an act to incorporate the Border Pipeline Corporation. It does not refer in any way to this well known book. It seems to me that the two members who have just spoken are debating the merits of this book. I believe it would be better if the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) were to direct his remarks to the bill and not to the book.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I have not found out what the point of order is. I want to assure the member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) that I appreciate his kindness. By taking at least six minutes of my time, he has assisted Canada's future as never before. Are there any more points of order? I would welcome them. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling. I would have liked to described a little of the territory. In

order that there be no injustice done the member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray), I am glad to know that the mighty Fraser rises in his constituency. Now, Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate why it is so muddy.
I would have liked to describe the Fraser river and the territory it covers, through which this pipe line will go. Since I cannot, Mr. Speaker, I am going to stay strictly with oil. I shall quote from the Canada page in Time magazine. I am sure that my friend knows Time magazine, and that he will not confuse it with Bruce Hutchison's book. It is a magazine published in the United States, in which many of us would like to have our names appear. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues from the northern part of British Columbia will appreciate the fact that I have had the pleasure of seeing my name in Time magazine four times. This article is headed "Alberta" and then "Share the Wealth".
When Alberta's oil boom began three years ago, Premier Ernest Manning promised that all citizens, not just oil well owners, would share in the newfound wealth.
That is a fine statement for a premier to make.
Last week Manning began paying off on his pledge. His Social Credit government's-
I wish I could say Liberal government.
-1951 budget, enriched with an estimated income of $25 million from oil royalties, dispensed bounties for practically all groups of Alberta taxpayers.
I am sure that I am sticking to oil. Possibly I could quote my own premier here and the attorney general of British Columbia, if we had had the co-operation that we sought. If we had had the co-operation that we sought two years ago, I believe these figures would have been written about northern British Columbia and not Alberta. That is rather a deep one and will be read with a great deal of interest in British Columbia.
Grants totalling $25 million to all municipalities to cut up to 61 mills a year off local property tax rates.
We in British Columbia would have been delighted-that is, we in lower British Columbia or central British Columbia-if northern British Columbia were doing that for us. Again I say that if we had had the proper co-operation, I believe that would have happened in the great northern part of British Columbia; and I believe that it yet will happen.


Mr. Blackmore:: If you had a Social Credit government, you would have got it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We want many things in British Columbia, but I have not the authority to say whether we are prepared to go that far.
Border Pipeline Corporation


John Horne Blackmore: You will have to go without your oil companies then.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will build up your province if you give me a chance.
Reductions of $5 to $15 a year in auto licence fees.
Elimination of the one-cent-a-gallon tax on agricultural and industrial fuel, a saving of $1-6 million for farmers and businessmen.
A $10 million fund for grants and interest-free loans to school boards and municipalities.
A new system of government annuities, paying
per cent interest, which any Albertan can start buying with a $10 down payment.


Mr. Wylie:: Read the last part, and tell us what the Liberal leader said. You might as well finish it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There is one advantage we have on this side of the house. I remember this well from last year. When we wanted a little bit of assistance, it started out and we got excellent assistance from that far corner, from the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I can well remember that. But apparently the clamp came on and we never heard another peep out of that corner over there; we could not get them to speak at all.
What I have read just emphasizes the possibilities there are with respect to oil, aside from fueling our great navy, which will be done in the Pacific through a bill that went through tonight. It emphasizes the other possibilities that there are in Canada, and particularly the possibilities we have on the Pacific coast for, may I say, in spite of ourselves, developing our greater northern British Columbia. Within the last few weeks the one company with which I am familiar brought in two excellent gas wells there. One of them is so great that, according to the last report I had, it had not yet been able to plug it. That is a good well. Bring us in about four or five more like it and we shall not actually need a pipe line to bring gas from northern British Columbia or northern Alberta. It will just pump off itself like that, it is coming out so strong.
I have to be careful here. I do not want to be called to order too often. I am not accustomed to being out of order. If you will just pardon me a minute, I should like to locate the document from which I want to quote. I want to bring in another province if I have time. I do not want to delay matters. This is a quotation from Hon. J. S. McDiarmid, Minister of Lands and Natural Resources for the province of Manitoba, page 99 of the

Supply-Agriculture
Dinning commission inquiry into reserves and consumption of natural gas in the province of Alberta:
It is the hope of the government of the province of Manitoba that the Alberta natural gas commission will find that there is sufficient natural gas to meet all the present and projected needs of the province of Alberta, and also sufficient surplus reserve to justify its exportation. If, on the other hand, the commission decides, as a result of its findings, that it is necessary to place certain restrictions on the exportation of natural gas, it is sincerely hoped that the commission will see fit to recommend to the government of Alberta that the transmission and distribution of natural gas to the other prairie provinces be given priority over other possible export markets.
That is from the government of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. I think it is rather significant. I could go on quoting, Mr. Speaker, only I am afraid that I might get back to Bruce Hutchison. This one is with respect to the government of the province of Saskatchewan, an exceedingly fine province. Before I left the real west out on the Pacific coast I had hoped to have given a little talk on wheat. I do not know whether I shall have time tonight to speak on that subject, but I hope to be able to get this quotation in from the province of Saskatchewan. It is from pages 99-100, report of the Dinning commission:
The government of the province of Saskatchewan in a submission before the committee on transport and communication to the Senate of Canada, in May, 1948, gave unqualified support to the principle of utilization of Alberta natural gas in the prairie provinces where the benefits in reduced living costs and increased household amenities, as well as the stimulation of industrial development, would be incalculable.
The government of the province of Saskatchewan desires to reaffirm its support of this principle and to urge that every consideration be given the welfare of Canadians in the prairie provinces in deliberations regarding the use of this important Canadian natural resource.
I have read quotations showing the policy of two provinces. I am sorry that time does not permit me to say what I believe the people of Ontario and Quebec and the eastern provinces would say.
On motion of Mr. Croll the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of the matter under discussion at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Special-
576. To authorize and provide for a payment to the Canadian wheat board which shall be dealt with by the board in all respects as though it was

money received from the sale of wheat produced in the designated area, sold and delivered to the board by producers during the pool period commencing on the first day of August, 1945, and ending on the thirty-first day of July, 1950, and to authorize the board, notwithstanding the provisions of subsections 2 and 3 of section 22 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, to distribute such amount together with all other moneys received by the board from the sale of such wheat, after making the deductions provided for in the said section 22, among holders of certificates issued by the board pursuant to part III of the said act during the pool period aforesaid, by paying to the person named in such certificate the same sum for each bushel of wheat referred to therein, $65,000,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: The subject under consideration is item 576. The subject matter of this item has been discussed in the house for the past two or three weeks and I do not intend to take much time. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I have discussed the subject. I have been a good listener, and I have tried to find some grains of wheat among all the chaff that has been blown about the house in the past ten days or two weeks.
This item has to do with the payment of $65 million to the western wheat growers. It is based on the wheat contract between Great Britain and Canada over a period of years. We all know that a contract is something which people more or less consider to be inviolate; and we expect all parties under a contract to live up to its conditions and its terms. If that contract has not been carried out by one party, we expect that that party should be made to carry out its terms. I might say at the outset that I have every respect for the grain growers of the west. I feel as do all people from my part of the country. If there is anything coming to the farmers of western Canada, we would be anxious to see them have it. As a matter of fact, to a great extent western Canada is made up of people from the maritimes. We have always, at all times, wished them well; and we still wish them well. If at times, such as at the time of the Red river flood, they need assistance, the people in eastern Canada will be most anxious to send what help they can. The same was true some years ago when they suffered from burnt-out areas. People from all parts of Canada were pleased indeed to send what aid they could to help the people in the west.
As I said a moment ago, if the grain growers are entitled to something under the contract, we would be in favour of passing the item. We know that wheat is our greatest exportable commodity; its export is the lifeblood of the country. It is responsible for the prosperity of the people in the west. If they are not prosperous the people in other parts of Canada are not prosperous either.

There is another point which I say that we as representatives of the people must take into consideration. We must ask ourselves what responsibility we have to our constituents. If this $65 million is to be paid-and it is a very large amount-people in my province and in other sections of Canada will have certain questions to ask their members. I know I will be asked: Why was it paid? Why did we pay $65 million to western Canada? Was it because the contract with the British people had not been lived up to? We can only quote what has been quoted so often in the house, namely the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he said that he deplored the suggestion that the British government had not played fair with the Canadian people. We have had tabled in the house a document which shows that the British government did play fair with Canada.
Well, if that is so, they must have played fair with the Canadian government and with the grain growers of western Canada- because these are all Canadian people. So when we are asked if there is any legal right to the payment of this $65 million, I do not think that, in the face of the facts and in the face of statements made and documents tabled in the house, we can say anything other than there is no legal obligation under the contract to pay any money to western Canada.
Another question our people would be justified in asking would be this: Are we morally bound? Is there any moral reason for our paying out this large sum of money to the grain growers of western Canada? As I said a moment ago, a contract is a contract. If it has been legally carried out, then it has been morally carried out. People are making contracts continuously, and when minds meet and a contract has been legally carried out, then to my mind there is no argument which would support any suggestion that it has not been morally carried out.
The third question which I believe our people would ask is this: Did the farmers of western Canada suffer because of this British wheat agreement? Did they have to sell their wheat below the cost of production, as the people in New Brunswick have had to sell their potatoes? We have been told by the Minister of Agriculture himself that he considers it a good contract. We have been told the same thing by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. No one in the house has suggested that the western farmers sold below cost of production. It is agreed that they got a price which was much higher than their cost of production, and I am told that during the term of the contract there was prosperity in the west.
Supply-Agriculture
Having disposed of the questions which might be asked by our constituents-whether it was legal, whether there was any moral obligation and whether the farmers have suffered-we will then be asked: Why are we paying $65 million to the grain growers of western Canada? If we reply by using the argument used in the house we would have to say that the western farmer was led to expect certain things, that expectations were raised in his mind, and that it is those expectations which form the basis upon which we are paying this large sum of money to the western grain growers.
I remember having read some years ago the book "Great Expectations". I am sure most hon. members have read that book by Charles Dickens and have seen the motion picture of the same name. As I recall, one of the characters in the book, a small boy, had assisted a felon who had escaped from justice, and the assistance had been given under compulsion. In later years the boy began to receive money from some source, although he did not know just where it was coming from. He was sent to a good boarding school, given money to spend and trained to be a gentleman. The money kept coming in constantly, and the young gentleman thought it was being sent to him by people having great influence and wealth.
One day however he found out who his benefactor was, it was disclosed to him that his benefactor all those years had been the felon who had escaped from justice, who had gone to Australia and made a fortune and who, as he thought, was repaying the boy for the help he had received in the past.
That is the story of "Great Expectations". I wonder if the expectations of the farmers in western Canada were raised on a somewhat similar basis; I wonder whether it was for past favours the government had received, or for future benefits it hoped to get. In any event we can have our own ideas in that connection.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member should be called to order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: This is the second time tonight the hon. member for Cariboo has been on his feet calling someone to order. It will be recalled that he made a speech a short time ago while the hon. member for Fraser Valley was speaking. There is just about as much reason for his calling me to order as there was for calling the hon. member for Fraser Valley to order at that time.

Supply-Agriculture


George Matheson Murray: I respectfully
suggest there is a very serious point of order here.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps the hon. member for Cariboo would state his point of order.


George Matheson Murray: In drawing his
picture of "Great Expectations" the hon. member has brought before us a character out of Dickens who was admittedly a felon, a criminal, a man who went to Australia and while there made his fortune. Then the hon. member uses this character as an illustration of what he suggests has happened in connection with the farmers of western Canada. He makes reference to funds being supplied, and the inference he draws is that the Minister of Agriculture is playing the part of a criminal from Australia, who is placing $65,000,000 as a gift to western wheat growers-money which he came by dishonestly. I say that suggestion should not be made.


James Garfield Gardiner: I saw the play, but he did not look like me.
The Depuiy Chairman: I have listened with care to the comparison made by the hon. member for Royal between the story in the book entitled "Great Expectations" and its application to the situation now before the committee. I must say I would not entertain the same fears as the hon. member does. I do not believe the comparison applies as between the minister and the good uncle, as he might be described, in respect of their having been guilty of a criminal offence or having -been sent to jail. I think the comparison was rather in relation to benefits past and future to which the hon. member for Royal was referring.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member is at perfect liberty to draw whatever inferences he wishes. I might say that I am quite content with the way Dickens wrote this story and prefer it to my hon. friend's version.
In connection with these expectations we have heard that they were raised more or less by the Hon. Mr. Strachey, the British minister of food, when he made a speech in Winnipeg. I have heard of the $64 question but I never heard before of a $65 million speech. That is what they are accusing Mr. Strachey of having made in Winnipeg. In fact, some people would have us believe that it was a $300 million or $400 million speech.
Mr. Strachey did make a speech in Winnipeg which the Minister of Agriculture quoted when he was speaking a few days ago, but
	I
he left out what I considered was the most important part of that speech. Mr. Strachey said:
I repeat that the essence of the agreement-
This is the part which I contend the Minister of Agriculture left out.
-is that in return for selling wheat at $1.55 during the first two years of the agreement, Canadian farmers get the protection of minimum floor prices of $1.25 and $1 in the third and fourth years. And I reiterate that it is an inescapable obligation of the British government to pay at least these prices however low the world price of wheat may go.
That was the essence of the agreement which was made, according to Mr. Strachey. The Minister of Agriculture will remember that in 1947 it was mentioned in this house and in the country that there was a great possibility of deflation. Our own government, and probably the government of Great Britain, thought that the price of wheat might go below $1.25 and $1. The British government guaranteed that no matter how low the price went they would live up to their agreement and would put on a floor price of $1.25 and $1 per bushel.
A lot has been made of the "have regard to" clause but so far I have not heard a proper definition of that clause given in this house. I think it can be taken for granted that one thing that was meant was that if the world price of wheat went up instead of going down, as the Minister of Agriculture expected it would, having regard to that the British government were willing to pay and did pay $2 per bushel for wheat. They did not say that they were going to pay the world price and that evidently was not demanded from the British, but they were asked to pay $2 per bushel for wheat and that is the price they paid. I submit that that is what was meant by the "have regard to" clause. They were having regard to the price of wheat going up and upped their price as stated.
I am not here to defend the British government, but as was stated the other day, Great Britain has built up trade in this country over a hundred years by honouring her contracts and by the excellence of her products. Great Britain became the greatest trader in the world and it little behooves us to try to blame that country, which has had such a long history of honour and integrity. Some people say it is the socialist government. I am not a socialist and I would like to see the socialist government beaten when they go to the country.
I have read the life of Mr. Attlee and I believe he is an honest and honourable man.
I think all hon. members will agree with me in that. Mr. Ernest Bevin is respected and honoured by his own people and by democratic people throughout the world. So

is Mr. Morrison. All these men are honourable men and I say it is unfair and unjust and untrue to say that such men would dishonour their contract.
The questions which I mentioned a few moments ago will be asked me by people in New Brunswick. I say to the Minister of Agriculture that if farmers in any part of Canada are suffering or have suffered during the last five years it is the farmers of the maritime provinces, particularly the potato growers. I am not using this as a quid pro quo argument, that because we are giving $65 million to the western farmers we must give it to the eastern farmers, but I do want to say that these people are getting hardly fifty per cent of the cost of production of the commodity they produce and yet they are being asked to help to pay this $65 million to the farmers of western Canada.
A few days ago the Turgeon committee after a most cursory investigation reported that the Chignecto canal was not feasible. We believe that it is. Sixty-five million dollars would have built the Chignecto canal which would have been of lasting benefit to the people in our part of the country. It will be pretty difficult for me or anyone else to go into my part of Canada and justify something for which there is no legal or moral ground as far as the records of this house are concerned and at the same time support this item for $65 million.
It is not my intention to take any more time of the committee. As my leader stated this afternoon, if instead of quoting a lot of confusing figures the Minister of Agriculture had given us some good and sound reason why this money should be paid, I and the people whom I represent would have been only too glad to agree to the fulfilling of obligations by the people of Canada and the paying of this $65 million. But when you analyse the minister's statements this afternoon and the statements which have been made in this house in the past two weeks I can see no just reason why the people of Canada should pay $65 million to the western wheat growers and I for one am opposed to this item.


Mr. Gibson:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move:
That item 576 of the further supplementary estimates be reduced from $65,000,000 to $1.
In moving this motion I regret very much that we are in committee because it will be impossible for certain hon. members to record for posterity their opposition to this measure which, as I said before, I regard as an agrarian commando raid upon the public treasury of Canada.
Supply-Agriculture


An hon. Member:: If it were lumber it
would be all right.


John Lambert Gibson: About the only reason we
have been given for the payment is that the farmers on the prairies had very great expectations. I for one am very glad that it did not prove to be twins although a great number of hon, members have tried to introduce into the debate the thought that we should probably bonus apples, potatoes, cheese and a number of other agricultural commodities in order to make the whole deal equal. I can understand the position of the Social Credit party. They represent only recipients of this bonus and naturally they would be in favour of the payment of this amount or, from my understanding of what they have said, something very much larger. Of course they hold different views as to how much money $65 million is. To me it is a tremendous sum. To them of course I know it only represents about fifteen minutes work on the printing press, and from their point of view it is probably not too important.
The C.C.F. party of course is in much the same position. They also represent a group of people who they think are crying for candy like small children. I wonder if they have considered their position in the light of the fact that they are also known as the broken arm of labour. I warned them in this house before the last general election that they were going to find great difficulty in serving two masters, and I think they will probably find themselves in that position now.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I think the scope of this resolution is quite wide, but perhaps the hon. member should not go too far in discussing the attitudes of the various parties as to being the arm of labour or in any other capacity.


John Lambert Gibson: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I
was really trying to analyse the position that the various parties had taken in this debate. I shall try to confine my remarks to things that are not too contentious, and of course they are very good natured people. I certainly do not think they are going to take too much offence. I have been wondering what effect their support of this payment is going to have on their members who come from industrial ridings. I wonder how they are going to explain to their constituents their support of a measure which I know they must realize will substantially increase the income taxes that urban workers will have to pay next year. Indeed if they got their wish, if the government had been foolish enough to listen to them and had let them have $330 million, I presume the income taxes which their workers would have to pay would probably be up almost 50 per cent. I am watching the

Supply-Agritulture
Minister of Finance very carefully. He is not nodding to corroborate my statement but I think he will say it would represent quite a substantial increase in income tax.
I am quite sure of course that at the appropriate time the C.C.F. will find some way of oozing out from under any responsibility for the increase in income tax, and will probably load it on the Minister of Finance. I think they are probably overestimating the stupidity of even their own electors when they think they will be able to get away with it. I can perhaps forgive the members of the two minor parties in this house for the position they take because after all I often think they know not what they do. On the other hand the conduct of the official opposition to me, to put it very mildly, has been disappointing. I was going to use the word "reprehensible" but I think the word "disappointing" is probably more fair.
I was particularly glad to hear the hon. member for Royal stand up and say what he did tonight. It was the first forthright statement I have heard on behalf of the official opposition with respect to this payment of $65 million. I certainly congratulate him on having made a statement of that kind which even I can understand.


Mr. Sinnott:: He wants to get together with his fellow member from Souris.


John Lambert Gibson: It seems to me that the official opposition can be classified almost as accessories after the fact.


An hon. Member:: Before the fact.


John Lambert Gibson: I would not say before the fact, although some of them may have had great expectations. I would certainly say that at the present time they are condoning something concerning which I am not sure that they are all very heartily in agreement. It seems to me it would be a wonderful start towards saving the half a billion dollars, which the leader of the opposition stated last year was so easy to do, to begin with this $65 million. It would have been an exceptionally good place to commence.


Mr. Fraser:: You should have heard him on the radio tonight.


John Lambert Gibson: I am glad I missed that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Try again.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You would have learned
something.


John Lambert Gibson: I now turn to the government, and I regret very much that I have felt it my duty to move this motion tonight. I have always had an almost childlike faith in the wisdom of the present government.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Childlike is right.


John Lambert Gibson: It probably was childlike. I have always realized that it is natural that all political parties should have a certain amount of clay in their feet. I think it is inherent in the business of politics. I am sorry to say, however, that this affliction seems temporarily at least to have moved up to their heads. I think the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce would convince any fair-minded man that the farmers of western Canada had received a very good deal. In my opinion the matter was competently handled by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture, and indeed by the whole government. I am extremely sorry that the government feels that they now have to follow this course of action. It seems to me they are following the principle that to him that hath shall be given. The prairie farmers have had a successful five-year period.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: So have the lumbermen.


John Lambert Gibson: It has indeed been successful for those who have been fortunate to have crops. They will receive the major portion of this money, money which I am quite sure that class of prairie farmer does not need. I would be very happy to support an expenditure of this size, or indeed one twice this size, if the government had suggested that this money be spent on some of the irrigation projects which I realize are so necessary for the prairies. They could have sold me on that. I would have thought it would have been a much wiser way to spend $65 million. I would hope that my friends in the cabinet would say so too if they were able to express their private opinions on this particular question.
I wish to protest on behalf of every taxpayer in Canada against what I believe to be an unwarranted and painful operation on the pocketbook of every taxpayer in Canada. I invite every member of the house to assist the country in saving $64,999,999 for the Canadian taxpayers. At the same time I think that anybody who votes for this motion will administer a rebuke to the government which in this case I believe they have coming to them. I hope that as a result of our actions we will deter the government from any step of a like nature in the future.


Mr. Charlton:: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the few remarks I have to make will take very little time but I do want to put on record tonight the position of the eastern wheat grower. It is quite apparent that the government intends to put through this $65

million, regardless of whether it is sufficient or insufficient. It is an amount which they grabbed out of the air and nothing has been said in the house yet to verify whether it is correct or not so far as the losses to the western farmers are concerned. As a matter of fact, the government, through the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, have never admitted that loss to the farmers through the wheat contract. The Prime Minister admits, however, that the western farmer is disappointed that he did not get more from that wheat contract. The amount of $65 million is simply grabbed out of the air and it is said to be the amount to be paid to them.
Is it that this amount has been taken to satisfy election promises or to save the hide of the Minister of Agriculture in the western provinces?
This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture showed a small sign of arrogance and admitted his error when in effect he stated that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and he himself could make statements which may not be correct because they have a leader who can iron out their differences. That is a terrific admission for the Minister of Agriculture to make.
I just want to point out the grave injustice to the eastern wheat growers, as admitted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in report No. 4 of the agriculture and colonization committee at page 108, of Wednesday, June 7, 1950. I shall quote from the report:


John Alpheus Charlton: The eastern farmer in the years
1945, 1946 and 1947 took $1.25 for his wheat, when the western farmer was getting $1.75, so the eastern farmer took a beating.


Right Hon.   Mr. Howe@: He was free to sell it
where he liked.


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, that is true, but at a stated
price.


Right Hon.   Mr. Howe@: Yes. Almost everybody
was put under a ceiling at that time but the eastern farmer was not. So far as pegged prices go, everything which the farmer bought was at a pegged price, under November, 1941, prices yet his wheat was allowed to go up.
There was an interjection by Mr. Wright which I do not think is necessary or relevant, and then my question goes on:
By Mr. Charlton:
Q. Yes, but not nearly up to $1.75.-A. No.


Right Hon.   Mr. Howe@: I always thought that the eastern producer got trimmed in that period.
That is an admission made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself. He said that he thought the eastern farmer took a trimming during that period in which the wheat board was in effect handling eastern wheat.	[DOT]
Then on March 6 of this year I asked the Prime Minister a question on the orders of 80709-94
Supply-Agriculture
the day which is to be found on page 947 of Hansard, and reads as follows:


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announced policy of the government by the Prime Minister to subsidize wheat producers for losses incurred under the wheat agreement, has the government given consideration to the position of the eastern wheat growers, cheese producers, hog producers and apple growers whose products were sold below world prices under government contract to the United Kingdom?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
To be fair I think I should go on and quote the supplementary question and the answer to it, which are found on the next page:


John Alpheus Charlton: In view of the short answer given
by the Prime Minister to my question, may I ask, if the government has not already considered the matter, whether it is prepared to do so now?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We are always prepared to consider anything, but that does not mean that the results of the consideration would be something that would comply with the apparent hopes behind the hon. member's question.
It took 33 words to say the same thing as the answer to the first question.
In report No. 5 of the committee on agriculture and colonization, dated June 8, 1950, we find a fairly concise report of what the eastern situation really is. The discussion started- on page 125 of that report. A question was asked regarding the handling of eastern wheat by the wheat board, and the witness said that he could get the information. I will quote what he said:
The Witness: This is contained in our report for the year 1946-47.
Ontario Winter Wheat.
From August 1, 1939, to July 31, 1944, board operations in Canada eastern winter wheat were governed by the terms of the Canadian Wheat Board Act 1935.
In the crop year 1941-42 the board was relieved of the responsibility of purchasing Canada eastern winter wheat unless the market price fell to support levels. This policy continued through the crop years 1942-43 and 1943-44.
Changed circumstances brought about a new government policy with respect to Ontario winter wheat in the crop year 1944-45, the main features of which were:
(1)	The board was exempted from its obligations under section 14 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act;
(2)	The board was charged with maintaining a floor price of $1.25 per bushel for top grades of Canada eastern winter wheat, basis delivered Montreal;
(3)	The Ontario wheat equalization fund was established and it became the responsibility of the board to assess equalization fees against Ontario wheat and wheat products sold for export.
The board did not have to purchase wheat in support of floor prices on Ontario wheat, but fees collected in connection with the equalization fund resulted in a surplus of $188,226.09 which was distributed to producers.
The 1944-45 Ontario wheat policy was continued in the crop year 1945-46. Again no action was necessary by the board in support of floor prices. The equalization fund amounted to $262,114.91 and was distributed to producers.

Supply-Agriculture
Government policy with respect to Ontario winter wheat during the crop year 1946-47 included several major changes and was as follows:
(1)	The Board was charged with the responsibility of maintaining a floor price of $1.25 per bushel for No. 1 Canada eastern winter wheat basis delivered Montreal;
(2)	The maximum price of $1.26 per bushel for Canada eastern winter wheat basis delivered Montreal, established in 1941 was continued;
(3)	Equalization fees on exports of Ontario winter wheat and wheat flour were continued;
(4)	The board was directed to administer a treasury payment of 9 cents per bushel over and above the maximum price for deliveries of Ontario winter wheat;
(5)	The board was directed to administer the payment to producers, at time of delivery, of a fixed and final equalization payment of 5 cents per bushel.
In administering this program the board received the full co-operation of the private trade in Ontario. Grain dealers and millers became the agents of the board in distributing the 5 cents equalization payment and the 9 cent treasury payment. They made both payments to producers at the time of delivery and were later reimbursed by the board. Wheat equalization payments amounted to $207,336.23 and treasury payments amounted to $373,207.11 on total reported marketings of 4,146,738 bushels.
Equalization fees collected on Ontario wheat and flour exported during the crop year amounted to $290,134.82, and exceeded equalization payments to producers by $82,798.59, which amount was credited to the dominion government. The net cost of the 1946-47 Ontario wheat operation to the dominion government including the treasury payment and administrative and other expenses, was $309,025.52. Financial details concerning the board's Canada eastern winter wheat operation are set forth in exhibits VIII and IX of this report.
Now, a further question by myself:
Q. Just in that connection, the last paragraph in part reads "-and exceeded equalization payments to producers by $82,798.59, which amount was credited to the dominion government." That was money collected through flour sold and in excess of the amount paid to us?
A. In excess of the estimated payment which was made at the start of the year. The fund actually realized a profit of $82,798.59.
Q. Which was not distributed to the producers?
A. No.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that might seem like a very small figure, $82,798.59, but on top of this price which we were forced to accept the government still has $82,798.59 which they are holding in the dominion treasury. On the basis of these five years, eastern wheat producers in 1943-44 took $1.25 per bushel; in 1944-45, they took $1.25 plus approximately 3 cents; ini 1945-46 they took $1.25 plus 5 cents; in 1946-47 they took $1.25 plus approximately 5 cents and 9 cents. In 1948 the price was allowed to go free and we received at least $2.20 per bushel. Averaging those five years, the price worked out at $1.48 per bushel, which is 35-3 cents less than the price now guaranteed to western producers. Now, Mr. Chairman, on an ordinary basis the difference between eastern and western wheat is approximately 10 cents.

If the $65 million is paid to western producers of wheat, when there has been no loss actually proven, and I say that a loss is proven to the eastern producers, then I think this government should do something about it. On top of the loss per bushel there is still $82,798.59 in the dominion treasury which is owing to the eastern growers.


Mr. Fulford:: In rising to speak briefly on the motion made by the member for Comox-Alberni, I wish at the outset to say there is no one in this house who realizes more than I do how vast a country this Canada of ours is or who realizes how diversified are its interests. I further realize what a difficult country it is to govern. At the same time, I have always believed in the old adage that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Certainly, if the wheat producers are entitled to a bonus, then so are the cheese producers of Ontario and Quebec. The producers of those two provinces have been required to furnish cheese to fill the contracts with Great Britain. For the first ten months of 1950 this cheese was sold at 11 cents less than the domestic price, and since the war it has sold for less than world market prices.
If one follows this argument to its logical conclusion, then the hog producers are also entitled to a bonus, as are the fishermen and the gold mines that are selling their gold at less than market value. I believe the ramifications of this thing are infinite. I am sure that in a few weeks he will hear arguments being used to the effect that high taxation is a method of taking wealth out of circulation, and will therefore act as a detriment to the inflationary spiral. When I was in New Zealand last November, I learned that the New Zealand government felt obliged to withhold one-third of the wool payments owing to farmers in order to curb the danger of serious inflation in that country. We, however, are deliberately placing in the hands of the farmers of the three western provinces a sum of $65 million.


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: It all comes back to Ontario anyway.


George Taylor Fulford: I do not know about that. If the western farmer were really hard up we would all have the greatest sympathy for him. I am told', however, that bank savings accounts were never higher than they are today in the western provinces. Certainly, I feel that the farmers of Ontario and Quebec have just as good a case as, or even a better case than, the farmers of the west for the $65 million. If the $65 million must be spent in the prairie provinces, why not use it to construct irrigation schemes? We have heard from all sides-

of the desperate need for more moisture in the ground in some of the western provinces. If we had an irrigation system in the western provinces-I do not believe anyone would contradict this point-it would definitely make for more diversified' agriculture. It would mean that the western provinces would not be so dependent on wheat prices, whether they be domestic, contract or world prices.
Few if any are satisfied' with the grant, and if other agricultural interests are not to receive any benefit, I have no alternative but to agree with the member for Comox-Alberni.


Mr. Wright:: I am rather surprised to hear the member for Leeds make the statement he has just made. He complains about certain people who produce cheese not receiving a subsidy, and includes certain other Ontario producers. I have in my hand a statement which appeared in yesterday's Hansard, and it shows that since the beginning of the war there has been a subsidy paid on cheese amounting to $13,567,000, of which $2,732,000 went to the province of Quebec and $10,531,000 to the province of Ontario. For factory improvement there has been paid $1,330,000, $770,000 of which went to the province of Quebec and $542,000 to the province of Ontario. The subsidy on milk for Cheddar cheese totalled $14,740,000, of which $5,494,000 went to the province of Quebec and $9,350,000 to the province of Ontario. Then, for freight assistance on feed grain the total was $138,937,000, of which $51,870,000 has been paid to the province of Quebec and $50,119,000 to the province of Ontario. There are also the hog premiums, showing the subsidies which have been paid to the hog producers of Ontario. There are also the subsidies paid for maple products. Nearly all of that has been paid to the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. I may say that this information may be found at page 1375 of Hansard of March 19, 1951. I agree with the hon. member for Brant-Went-worth when he complains of not receiving a sufficient price for the wheat which went into domestic consumption in eastern Canada here. We in western Canada are in exactly the same position. I have in my hand the 26th annual report of the Saskatchewan Co-operative Producers Limited. This report states:
The government was advised that in the final settlement of the five-year pool, which terminated on the 31st July, 1950, provision should be made for:
(1) An adjusting payment on all wheat sold for domestic consumption during the period 1st March, 1945 to 17th February, 1947.
Supply-Agriculture
That is pretty much the period which the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth was speaking about. It further states:
As pool delegates will recall, wheat used for domestic consumption was supplied by the Canadian wheat board at $1.25 per bushel, plus carrying charges, for the period 1st March, 1945, to 17th March, 1947. During this whole period all wheat for export was sold at a price substantially above this figure. In the opinion of your board the export price during this time would average probably $1.55 a bushel.
On the basis of that subsidy to the consumers of bread in Canada, we believe that there is another $48 million due to the five-year pool over and above the $65 million which the government have placed in it. I want to say that the Liberal members of the legislature in the province of Saskatchewan have made a statement in which they are urging this government to place this additional $48 million in the five-year pool, and I have not heard the Liberal members of parliament from Saskatchewan or from western Canada getting up in this House of Commons and backing that request. I have not heard the Minister of Agriculture nor the Minister of Trade and Commerce getting up and explaining why the farmers of western Canada should not be compensated to the amount of this $48 million. Before this debate closes I hope the Minister of Agriculture will give the reasons why this government is not meeting the request not only of the wheat pools but of the Saskatchewan farmers' union, the Alberta farmers' union, Liberal members of the legislature of the province of Alberta, Liberal members of the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan and in representations that have been made to them from the province of Manitoba. We think that this is a compensation which this government owes to the wheat producers in western Canada.
There is just one other point that I want to cover and it is this. Why were not the representatives of the advisory council of the wheat board called in between May 22 and May 30 when the government finally accepted the memorandum or minutes of meetings that were submitted to them from Great Britain? When the Minister of Agriculture went to Great Britain recently he took a representative over with him. But that was after they had finally accepted on May 30 the minutes or the settlement offered by the British government. The time for the government to have called in for consultation the representatives of western Canada was before those minutes were accepted. I should just like an explanation from the minister as to why we are not entitled to another $48 million payment as requested by all representatives from western Canada, and why the

Supply-Agriculture
representatives from the west were not consulted before the final agreement was made on May 30.


John Lambert Gibson: It was $300 million to start
with. Why do you not make up your mind?


Percy Ellis Wright: Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, may I add this word or two? I have not said anything with regard to the hon. member who has just spoken; I refer to the hon. member for Comox-Albemi. But if he would remember that back in 1949, when he could not sell his lumber, the wheat producers of western Canada allowed 12,500,000 bushels of wheat to be taken out of their 1949 contract in order to make $25 million available for the purchase of lumber by Great Britain, perhaps he would not have moved the motion which he has just moved. I must say that I heartily disagree with it.


John Lambert Gibson: No subsidy.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Leeds has raised a question which I had expected was going to be raised much earlier in the discussion. As a matter of fact, I have been carrying the answer in my pocket until I have almost worn it out. The statement which was made a few minutes ago, from the Hansard of March 19, is only a part of the statistics which are available in connection with the payments which have been made by the Department of Agriculture over the years from 1939 down to the present. I have in my hand a sheet which covers all of the net costs of subventions, bonuses and subsidies paid by the federal Department of Agriculture for the fiscal years 1939-40 to 1949-50. From those dates it will be noticed that there is still one year that we have been paying after that. The total amount of the payments, before there was any vote proposed for wheat, was $727 million. Of that, over $169 million went to the dairy farmers in one form of subsidy or another; $248 million of it went to the livestock producers and the greater part of that $248 million will be paid to the same persons as are producing dairy products. Then one could go on to quote the figures with regard to all the products that have been talked about. But the only other figure that I am going to use at the moment is the one having to do with apples and vegetables, including potatoes-and I must say that the potato one is the small one among these-of $30,124,000. When one recalls that there are only about 4,000 fruit growers in Nova Scotia, where they got about $21 million or rather $18 million of that amount-the $21 million would not apply until another year's payments are made-and that the province of British Columbia, with a similar number,

received up to that time some $2 million, and since then has had $2 million, one will realize that when 250,000 farmers have a subsidy of $65 million, per family the payment in every one of the other classifications, with the possible exception again of potatoes, has been higher than the payment per family in connection with any grants that have been paid to the wheat growers in connection with wheat. I give those figures in order to ease the minds of those who think that they have got to vote against this item because the people they represent did not get anything. They have all had something. In my opinion, if you take into consideration the farmers in this country from one end to the other with regard to the payments that they have received, it will be found that they have been dealt with with extreme equality, no matter what part of Canada they live in or no matter what part of agriculture they have been conducting.
May I say that I am not altogether sure that the potato growers have been dealt with as favourably as others. There has been a reason offered, one which has been explained to the house on a number of occasions. It is more difficult to find a way of subsidizing potato growers from Ottawa, to pay federal subsidies to potato growers which I presume we would have to make apply all the way across Canada, if such subsidies were produced from here, without injuring the industry itself where it is necessary for it to continue so as to provide a reasonable living to the people concerned, than it is in connection with any of the others.
However that matter is being considered; and what we have in mind in connection with it is that when we have fully dealt with it we at least have the hope that we will have established, or assisted in establishing, some method under which these potatoes can be marketed to better advantage in the years ahead, without depending upon subsidies which may cause people to produce potatoes in great quantities in some other sections of Canada, and thus destroy the market available now for those who must produce potatoes and sell them at some distance away from the farms on which they are produced, without doing injury to those people.
I thought I should say that much. There was no wish on my part to raise a discussion in the matter, because it can be discussed at any time. But facts have been asked for by members in the house. They were placed on Hansard on the 19th, and I think a study of that partial list of facts would be useful.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister seems to be using a more comprehensive list than

appeared in Hansard yesterday. Could we have the one he is using placed on Hansard?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it could be placed on Hansard. I do not believe I could, between now and the time Hansard appears in the morning, get a copy which would take in the last year. I had thought at first that I had the last year with me, but I find now that I have not.


Major James William Coldwell: Perhaps it could be brought tomorrow.


James Garfield Gardiner: We could probably put it on some time tomorrow.


Mr. Hatfield:: The minister is talking about future plans for the potato growers. What about the present year, when they are selling potatoes for a quarter of the cost of production?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am talking about the present year and the future. As I said yesterday, the matter is under discussion for this year. I am talking about whatever may be done this year in terms of what might be done in the future. My hope has always been that we could set up some form of organization, perhaps on a co-operative basis, in the two provinces where they must be able to sell potatoes if they are going to be able to stay on their farms, which would take control, and I think would pretty well relieve us here of the responsibility of considering this matter every year. I wanted to say that with regard to the general position.
Then, I have been asked questions as to why we have not consulted this one and why we have not consulted that one with regard to our activities in connection with certain matters.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Is it your opinion that, owing to the excellent quality of Simcoe county apples, you have never found it necessary to subsidize the farmers of Simcoe county?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not the major reason; but the fact is that during certain years we were subsidizing others we eliminated their apples from Ontario and Quebec, and left that market entirely to the Ontario and Quebec growers. Later on we did quota the number of apples which could be shipped from British Columbia or from the maritime provinces to Ontario and Quebec. And thus there has been left the best market in the world, right under their noses in Ontario and Quebec-Toronto, Montreal and elsewhere- to the people who produced the apples in Ontario. And I have sometimes wondered, in view of the fact that the apples up in
Supply-Agriculture
Simcoe are so good, why they buy so many British Columbia apples. But apparently that is a fact.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Just the spice of life; I suppose that is why. It is not the superior quality.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question asked as to our consulting different people who are interested in the marketing of wheat as to the decisions made brings to my mind the fact that when we started to consider this question first we were confronted with a resolution which had been introduced into the legislature of Saskatchewan.
During our discussions reference has been made time and again to the possibility of this being somewhat of a political issue-that somebody's hide has got to be saved. Well, I think most of the members in the house, and particularly those from the west, will agree that I have never needed anybody to save my hide, politically. I have been running elections now for thirty-eight years, and I have won them all. So that there is not any hide-saving required. Last time I had the largest majority I ever had; so I am not worrying about that part of it.
Now, I do not know whether the legislature of Saskatchewan was playing politics with wheat or not. There was a suggestion made that there might be an election this summer. I have never agreed or never thought that there would be. As a matter of fact I have my own idea of when that election will be-and I do not think I will be more than a week out. But I am not going to announce it for the benefit of my hon. friends tonight.
The resolution which was introduced on February 21 into that legislature read like this:


Major James William Coldwell: What year?


James Garfield Gardiner: 1951.


Major James William Coldwell: We were talking about 1950.


James Garfield Gardiner: And I am talking about 1951, which is more up to date. It said:
Mr. Thair, on Friday next, to move the following resolution:
That this assembly, recognizing that there exists a national responsibility to compensate the wheat producers for the heavy losses sustained under the Anglo-Canadian wheat agreement and in view of the fact that the farmers of Saskatchewan have carried an undue burden of consumer subsidization, recommend to the dominion government that a final payment of not less than 25 cents per bushel be made as a final payment under the five-year pool.
I would call attention to the fact that in this resolution they mention the heavy losses sustained under the Anglo-Canadian wheat agreement. That is the chief fact mentioned in the resolution. Then they go on to refer

Supply-Agriculture
to the question raised a few moments ago by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), namely the subsidizing of the consumers in this country. Then they recommend a final payment of not less than 25 cents a bushel- which works out to about $350 million.
Well, it is true that that is not all suggested as a subsidy. There is 3 -81 cents of it already in the pool as a result of having sold wheat. So that, as was suggested the other night by the hon. member for Melfort, the subsidy is something over $300 million. That resolution was on the order paper of February 21. The Prime Minister stood up in this house on March 2 and made the announcement that we were paying $65 million into the pool which would result in a payment of about 8-3 cents per bushel on the wheat. On March 5, just three days later, this appears on the votes and proceedings of the legislature of Saskatchewan:
The motion, to be moved by Mr. Thair, respecting a final payment by the government of Canada, under the five-year wheat pool, of not less than 25 cents per bushel was, by leave of the assembly, withdrawn.
It remained on the order paper from February 21 until March 5, and then by leave of the house it was withdrawn. Then on March 6, the next day, Mr. Thair moved another resolution as follows:
Mr. Thair, on Thursday next, to move the following resolution:
That this assembly regrets that the government of Canada has failed to give the wheat growers a sufficient return for the wheat delivered to the five-year pool during the period 1945-49, and urges the said government to give immediate consideration to the revision upward of the 8-3 cents per bushel final payment recently announced, in order that the wheat growers may be more adequately compensated.
It will be seen that they have dropped all mention of the "have regard to" clause or of the British agreement. They did not want to talk about that. They even dropped all mention of the 25 cents per bushel and left our friends who sit in this house and who support the same party sitting holding the bag. There is no 25 cents mentioned in the resolution at all. Those men back in Regina who are close to the farming population of western Canada, who are close to the organizations that handle grain in great quantities, came to the conclusion that the 25 cents should not be there and they withdrew it from their resolution.
Apparently they did not know that I was going to make a speech in the house on Thursday, March 8, when they suggested putting this resolution on the order paper on Thursday, March 8. I made a speech on Thursday, March 8, which was published in Regina, and
[Mr Gardinei ]
instead of having the resolution proceeded with on Thursday, on March 9 this appears in the votes and proceedings:
By leave of the assembly, the resolution to be moved by Mr. Thair respecting the final settlement for wheat delivered to the five-year pool during the period 1945-49, was withdrawn.
It was withdrawn.


Major James William Coldwell: Was that a private member's motion?


James Garfield Gardiner: You know Mr. Thair.


Major James William Coldwell: Was it a private member's motion?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was a private member's motion, yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Private members withdraw their motions here.


James Garfield Gardiner: But they do not do it that often and with the same relationship to what other people are saying. The speech which I delivered in the house that evening did lay some responsibility upon the British government for the decision reached. The resolution which was on the order paper or which my friend thought was on the order paper, but which from his attitude now and at the time he made his speech, he did not seem to know about-


Major James William Coldwell: As a matter of fact I did not know that those motions were on the paper.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am beginning to think you did not, although I thought you had other ideas.


Major James William Coldwell: If the minister wants to start a debate on this I am sure we will be glad to accommodate him.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not starting anything, I am just trying to give information. I am giving it.


Major James William Coldwell: You have not given any explanation yet as to why the producers were not called in for consultation between May 22 and May 30, 1950.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not interrupt the hon. member when he was speaking.


Major James William Coldwell: This afternoon?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not when you are giving so strong a speech as you were the other night and when you are far off the track as you were.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister was not here.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some of our friends in the press gallery ought to realize you are not always on the track.


Major James William Coldwell: May I suggest that the minister address the chair.


An hon. Member:: Can't you take it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I can quite understand why you do not like my looks. I will turn the other way.


Major James William Coldwell: Again I suggest that the minister should not address me personally but rather should speak to the chair. That is a rule of the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: I looked right straight in your eyes the other night when you were saying that I was making statements that could not be believed.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: So that resolution was withdrawn on the day following the speech which I delivered in this house and in which I said that there was some responsibility on the British government. I refer now to votes and proceedings of the Regina house of Tuesday March 13, 1951. My friend made his speech in the house on the night of March 12 and it was reported in the Regina Leader-Post the next morning. There is no question about whether or not the members of the legislature of Saskatchewan, private or otherwise, knew of that speech and what was said. Let us read the third resolution they put on the order paper, after having withdrawn two. I am not too sure that this one is going to stick for reasons I happen to know about, but we will put it on the record anyway. The votes and proceedings of March 13 contains this:
Moved by Mr. Thair, seconded by Mr. Brown:
That this assembly endorses the resolution passed at a joint meeting of the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture and the executive of the western agricultural conference held in Regina on Wednesday, March 7, 1951, as follows:
"That the government of Canada be asked to pay on the five-year pool settlement at least 548,090,000 as a return of the subsidy paid by producers on domestic wheat, plus a further substantial payment in addition to the $65,000,000 token payment already announced in consideration of the 'have regard to' clause of the Canada-United Kingdom agreement".
If anybody can run an election on those resolutions I would like to see them try it. There is not going to be an election run on the wheat payment. There is not going to be any election run as a result of any vote that is passed here, whether it is $65 million or any other number of millions. The people who have been trying to build up that theory in the minds of the people are doing it without any knowledge of the facts, without having given any thought whatsoever to what is going on in the section of the country from which we come.
If in spite of what I am saying there happens to be an election in western Canada or in Saskatchewan two years before the time the government needs to have it, it certainly
Supply-Agriculture
will not be run on this issue. As someone said the other night, the issue upon which they are threatening to run is the Korean issue. When we see the Korean issue discussed in this house in order to obstruct the discussion of this particular resolution-


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member for Vancouver East certainly had no thought in mind of obstructing this discussion. As a matter of fact he did that on his own initiative. When the minister says that there is disagreement, look at the disagreement there is in the Liberal party tonight on this wheat issue.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I probably have no right to suggest that the hon. member had any motive in mind when he discussed Korea this afternoon and I probably should withdraw the suggestion because it is not in accordance with the rules of the house. Nevertheless I would point out that the premier of Saskatchewan did suggest having an election on that issue.


Major James William Coldwell: No, that is not what he said.


James Garfield Gardiner: From the floor of the house.


Major James William Coldwell: No, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the issue of the activities in Korea.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not what he said.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is sufficient for the purpose we have at the moment. The party that my hon. friend leads is not very well decided as to just what they think about wheat. I have been asked why we did not consult the farmers. Three members of this government did consult the farmers last week.


Major James William Coldwell: Ah, but-


James Garfield Gardiner: We will get around to your "ah, but" after a while, but right now I am telling you that we did discuss it with the farmers. It may surprise my hon. friends when they go home at Easter to find out that what I stated here very early in the debate is true, namely, that I have not yet met a single farmer who was asking for 25 cents a bushel, and that I was much nearer right than some of the others are. That is the position in relation to this matter but I did not rise so much to deal with that. Many things have been said in this house with respect to myself personally and with regard to my general attitude toward this question. In that regard I want to say that a great deal has been said about the relationships of this country with Great Britain, and about the attitude that one should take towards discussions between this country and Great Britain.

Supply-Agriculture
I do not think I need to make any apologies to anyone-and more particularly to the leader of the C.C.F. party-for any attitude that I have ever taken towards Great Britain either in this house or outside of it. As a matter of fact I have perhaps a peculiar opinion in the minds of some people but I still believe in the good old theory that was enunciated many years ago by the leader of the Conservative party at that time when he said: "A British subject I was born and a British subject I hope to die."


An hon. Member:: I will die.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I read it myself today and he said "I hope to die."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speak for yourself.


An hon. Member:: Revised version.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are more than modern members of parliament who get their Hansard, corrected at times.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You go and
look at the monument at Kingston. You will see which is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was after it was revised, I suppose, but the way it is in Hansard is just as I have stated. What I wanted to say was that as a Canadian citizen I am also a British subject, and I think I am so recognized and acknowledged when I am in Great Britain. The British do not expect that we are going to take exactly the same attitude or feel ourselves under some obligation to withhold discussions in certain directions when we are in London as we might feel if we were in Moscow. There is a little different attitude taken by people in the capitals of the countries of the British commonwealth compared with people who are in other capitals. International complications are not the same.
That brings to my mind that when I turned on the radio on Sunday night to listen to the review of the news I heard the most scurrilous description of myself that I have ever heard, and I have heard a lot of them. This one was made by the son of one of the most gentlemanly individuals whom I have ever had the opportunity to meet in my political life, the former leader of the C.C.F. party. I do not know that I would have listened to it if I had known what he was going to say but once I started to listen I had to listen to the end to see how far he would go.


An hon. Member:: The editor of a Liberal paper.


James Garfield Gardiner: That paper is not Liberal.


An hon. Member:: Since when?


James Garfield Gardiner: The story was to the effect that there was something wrong with my morals. Well, probably there is but they will compare favourably with those of some other people. Then he went on to say that I was doing something which would injure international relationships. I want to tell the hon. gentleman-I don't know that I should give him that title because he does not sit in this house, and for that reason and no other probably-that after this speech which I have in my hand was delivered-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which one is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am going to read it to you and you will know all about it-I had to sit at a dinner in this city to which I was invited and listen to this man and his speech being criticized by the representatives of another nation. I had to apologize for him by saying that his opinion does not count for much anyway. Maybe on that basis I should not say anything about it in this house but nevertheless I have spoken to so many people who have stated in the last few days that I should say something about it that I want to read what this American gentleman was objecting to. This speech was delivered on December 17, 1950.


An hon. Member:: By whom?


James Garfield Gardiner: By the editor of the Evening Citizen. Here is what he said, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of December 19, 1950:
I do not think Canadians are more afraid than other people are of getting involved in another big war. What they are afraid of, I think, is that they may be dragged into a war that might be avoided if it were not for America's hysterical fear of communism and blunders in American foreign policy this fear has caused.
If I ever say anything in this house that is as strong as that, or anything that is more likely than that to cause trouble between two countries, then I will expect someone to make on the radio and elsewhere the kind of attack which was made by the editor of this paper in the city of Ottawa.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What has
that got to do with item 576?


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend says: What has this got to do with this item? It was this very matter that he was discussing when he made this statement with regard to myself.


George Alexander Drew: On December 19?


James Garfield Gardiner: He said because I had suggested that $65 million was to be paid that it was immoral because it was being done to bribe people for this election that was going to be held. There were other reasons why it was immoral. It was a terrible thing to be doing at this time of difficulty throughout the world because of the effect it might have

internationally. I am just suggesting that if I had ever gone as far as this gentleman has gone in that direction I would not be surprised at anything that might be said.


Mr. Warren:: Excommunicate him.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have in my hand another publication which has been dealing with this question for some time. I think I should deal with it because it has been quoted twice tonight in the debate so far. There are some rather complimentary remarks made at the beginning of it by Mr. Michael Barkway in commenting upon the discussion in this house last week.
What I should like to say at the beginning is that in the 38 years that I have sat either in the legislature or in the House of Commons, on two occasions I have seen men brought before the bar of the house for disrespect to members who have been speaking in different legislative bodies. I doubt very much if they had gone any farther than, or as far as, either of these gentlemen did go with regard to discussions in this house recently. I am not going so far as to make statements in this house with regard to either of them that I would not make outside the house because I do not think it is fair for any member who is under the protection of the house to attack men who have not the protection of the house; but I do think it is most unfair for men, who are given the privilege of sitting in the press gallery of this house, to abuse that privilege by uttering statements which are not borne out by the facts in connection with any discussion which took place in this house. Therefore I think I must make the corrections that are necessary in order to make sure that these matters are not reported again in the discussion as being matters of fact. They are not matters of fact. This gentleman says:
There is nothing of finesse about Mr. Gardiner's technique.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He is not the only one who has said that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I never pretend to be an after-dinner speaker or anything of that kind. I continue:
There is nothing of finesse about Mr. Gardiner's technique. "The British were confident," he said, "that the price of wheat would fall below $1.55 in the last two years of the agreement, and we were just as confident, that with United States aid and a Canadian loan, the price would go and remain above $1.55.''
Then there is a part put in which I am not sure that he could have said. It is in brackets to show something that is supposed to be in the agreement and I think it is. Then he goes on to say:
Probably no other member of parliament would have dared to bank on the shortness of public memory to this extent. In all parts of the house, 80709-95
Supply-Agriculture
members remembered perfectly well that in the years Mr. Gardiner was speaking of, 1945 and 1946, the one great fear of the farmers' organizations, and the one compelling motive for signing the four-year contract was the expectation that the bottom would drop out of the wheat market. Mr. Gardiner, who has an exceptionally good memory, must remember that in the summer of 1946 an international wheat agreement was already being discussed, and the price then being contemplated as a maximum was $1.55. He will also remember that the preamble to the United Kingdom agreement-
Said so and so. Let us take a look for a moment at the prices during the period of which he speaks and when he says the price was $1.55. The world price as we have been discussing it, the Chicago price, in September of 1945 was $1.72 when we started to discuss $1.55 as a ceiling. The price in June of 1946 was $1.95; at Chicago in July, 1946, it was $2.01. It was in July, 1946, that the contract was signed at $1.55. How anyone can suggest that there was any reason for considering $1.55 as the actual price of wheat, or anything associated with it, is most difficult to understand.
The next paragraph says that a world agreement was being discussed at that time, an international wheat agreement. An international wheat agreement was first discussed in 1932, and in case somebody looks up the record I had better recite it now. I was opposed to it and, as a matter of fact, led the attack upon it in the legislature of Saskatchewan when I was leading the opposition. That opposition to the agreement continued for some years, as members of the C.C.F. party know. But in recent years I have been a convert to the idea and you know converts always believe in anything much more firmly than those who had always believed in it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And how!


James Garfield Gardiner: And so I am somewhat of a convert. But what was the ceiling price that was being discussed? It was not $1.55 a bushel. It never was. The ceiling price being discussed at the beginning at that time was $1.50 a bushel, and the floor was $1 a bushel. And we in Canada agreed to accept that ceiling of $1.50 and the floor of $1. But when the matter went before the conference which was held, as he stated here, it was not agreed to. The reason that it was not agreed to was that the American parity price was $1.80; and they insisted upon the ceiling price in the agreement being $1.80; and not $1.55. I should like my friend to explain why, under these facts, he tries to tell me that we were absolutely convinced that at

Supply-Agriculture
that time wheat was only going to be worth $1.55. Then we come down to the next statement where he says:
As late as April, 1947, Mr. Gardiner said to the House of Commons: "If the world market remains as high as it is now, which very few people expect . .
He just cuts the sentence off there. I do not know what I said after that; I have not looked it up; but he says that in April 1947 I said: "If the world market remains as high as it is now, which very few people expect"- he says that in order to prove to the Canadian public that I had not thought wheat was going to stay up as compared with what it was at the beginning of this contract. Well, what was the price of wheat on the Chicago market in April of 1947? It was $2.58, and it continued to go up until it was $3.09 later in that year. Wheat never has been as high as that since. In other words, I said that wheat could not remain at the very high peak that it was in 1947. It was bound to come down from there, and it was because it was bound to come down from there that there was no reason in the world for being absolutely -convinced when we accepted $2 a bushel later on that that would not result in any payment being made under the "have regard to" clause. All I repeat this for is to indicate that that was the position.
In his next statement he goes on to say:
No wonder members found the rest of the argument topsy-turvy. But if Mr. Gardiner is anything, he is ingenious. By carefully chosen references he built up his precarious structure.
Someone quoted the remainder of this this evening indicating that I had left out something. The only thing I left out was what everybody agrees with regard to, namely, that a legal floor was established under the agreement and that the "have regard to" clause had relation to the ceiling and not to the floor, and therefore there was no reason whatsoever for my using this quotation in connection with what I had to say on the matter. But I would point this out, that the Canadian government put a floor under wheat before the British government put in any floor. We -put a floor of $1 per bushel for five years in 1945, to be continued until the end of the five-year pool. That floor which was there in the last year was an obligation to this government which the British government only accepted when they were drawing up this agreement, and the fact that they put $1.25 in the other was not going to be of any particular help to the farmers because we had already guaranteed them $1.25 for the whole five years of the contract.
Every member of this house recalls that we here passed an amendment to the act a year later than this contract was drawn

raising the advance payment from $1.25, where it had been and which was as high as the British ever put it, to $1.35. They had that guarantee right through the whole contract no matter what the British had undertaken to -put in it. I believe that is sufficient to cover that particular matter, but there is one other thing which is his final crack. He says this:
The other essential basis of Mr. Gardiner's argument was that the British government, in his own words, "owed us something or owed the farmers of western Canada something." But here he was up against the fact that last June 5, Mr. Howe, the minister responsible for marketing wheat, had told parliament that the British said they had fulfilled all their obligations; and Mr. Howe added: "We agreed on behalf of Canada that considering all the circumstances that was the case."
Now, here is the important thing.
Mr. Gardiner simply ignored this.
I have in my hand the Hansard, Mr. Chairman. What are the facts? I was being interrupted while I was attempting to put the whole matter on the record. I read the first two sentences, and then someone said something and I went on to read the other, "We agreed on behalf of Canada that considering all the circumstances that was the case." This man says I passed that up altogether. He says I passed it up as part of my technique. I am not going to say anything more with regard to the remainder of the article, because it deals with Mr. Howe's position, other than to say this to the members of this committee, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce on two occasions corrected that statement. The statement was repeated here a few minutes ago by the member for Melfort. On two occasions the Minister of Trade and Commerce corrected that statement before someone said to him, "Well, do you want to correct it?" Mr. Howe said no. He had already corrected it. He corrected it again later on.
All I want to say about it is, that under those circumstances I think an article of this kind is so far away from the facts that the gentleman who wrote it ought to get the information and read it himself. This afternoon someone said that the information is all on the record. There is information on the record with regard to one incident, and after that information was placed in the hands of the committee the mover of the resolution requesting the information withdrew the resolution and the other information is not in the hands of the committee. But that information only bears out what has been said; and, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to go any further into the discussion than to say that there are no two members of this government-I want to say this-there are no two members of this government who

have worked more closely over the last fifteen years than the Minister of Trade and Commerce and myself. I do want to say this, too, that I have never made a move in connection with this wheat matter without first discussing it with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, since he became the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We discussed all these matters as I indicated in the story I told more than a week ago, and which has been the subject of criticism in this house. As was demonstrated this afternoon, the members who got up and made criticisms had not read Hansard themselves. I would suggest that if criticisms are going to be made, that really ought to be done. I make no apology whatever for taking up a little time tonight in order to straighten out one or two things. I have never asked for anyone's sympathy-


An hon. Member:: Indulgence.


James Garfield Gardiner: -indulgence, yes, that is probably the better word-at any time since I have been in this house or at any time since I have been in politics. I have always attempted to keep myself informed before I tried to inform others. I should like to suggest to those who are going to write articles like this that they ought to have themselves informed before they write them.
For the benefit of my hon. friend, I am going to tell a little story. There is another periodical that is printed not very far away from where this one is printed. On two occasions that periodical undertook to write articles like this one. One occasion was when I was fighting a battle in Saskatchewan in 1929, and I am not going over the details of it now, but the most scurrilous attack prior to this one and prior to the one on Sunday night that has ever been made upon me-I think they have been just as scurrilous upon me as anyone else-was made on that occasion. We lost the election. Then, we had another election five years later, and we won that. The same gentleman wrote the same kind of article again. He could not understand why the Saskatchewan people would put me back again.
Do you know what happened? That periodical was thrown off most of the newsstands in Saskatchewan; they said they would not sell it.


Major James William Coldwell: What was the name of that periodical?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was Maclean's magazine.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It still survived, you know.


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Edmund Davie Fulton: Which newspapers?


James Garfield Gardiner: One of them was a Liberal paper and the other was a Conservative paper.


Mr. Nowlan:: What are the names?


James Garfield Gardiner: The first was the Leader-Post of its day and the second was the Regina Star of its day. There is not anyone in the newspaper business who will question the fact that both of the machines that were set up around them were smashed. My difficulty is that some of those associated with these ventures are still alive and scattered over Canada, and some of them are still in the newspaper business.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You would rather that they were dead, I suppose.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not worry about them. They elect me every election. I just wanted to state these facts in order to indicate to the members of this chamber that I am not

Supply-Agriculture
at all concerned about what these men write, but I am concerned about the welfare of the House of Commons which carries on discussions regarding public affairs and then has reports put out from these galleries by persons who pay no attention whatever to the facts when they have some reason for trying to propagandize someone out of this house or someone out of this government. But again I say that we in this country are in the fortunate position that we have a Liberal party and it believes in Liberal principles. This afternoon I said something which I probably did not make complete, and I want to complete it now. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I and every other member of this government believe in the principles of Liberalism.


An hon. Member:: Why do you not live up to them?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are out and out Liberals; and the essence of Liberalism is that you are out for reform. When you are out for reform, you are always pulling into the future. You are not always in agreement on what is being done today, although you hope to be all in agreement when what is advocated is accomplished and on what is being done after it is accomplished. We have all been working together in the government toward a certain end. If I were looking for compliments, and wanting to acknowledge them, I would say that the finest compliment that I have ever had since I have been in public life-and as I said a moment ago, I have been in public life now for 38 years-was the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other night in this chamber when he got to his feet and said what he did. He said what? He said that, even although he did not advocate it when we started, there had been a five-year pool set up, a year later there was a British contract drawn, and that this contract and this pool had been the best things that had ever been done in the interest of the wheat growers of western Canada. It just so happens that I was entrusted with the task of establishing the wheat pool; that is the five-year pool. It just so happens also that I was entrusted with the task of establishing the four-year contract; and that is the reason why I am entrusted with the task tonight of trying to put through the $65 million vote which is the final act in connection with that contract.


An hon. Member:: You did a good job.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Minister of Trade and Commerce says I did a good job.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would you read us the last sentence of his speech?


James Garfield Gardiner: The last sentence of his speech will stand a lot of investigation on the part of a man like the hon. member; and if he fully understands it-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister read it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will read some other parts of the speech in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that, in spite of the fact that he felt this and he felt that, he was in agreement with the fact that the government had decided to pay $65 million into this pool.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes; he said that.


James Garfield Gardiner: And that is all that is involved now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister read the last sentence?


James Garfield Gardiner: If you read the whole speech you will be better informed than you will be by just reading the last sentence.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Read the last sentence.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I say, that is the present position; and so far as the party itself is concerned I think that the party, led as it is, is one of the strongest parties we have ever had in Canada under any name. I also think that it would be weakened if any one of the three men who are being discussed so much in connection with this debate were to drop out of the party. I want to assure my hon. friends, however, that if I were out of the government tomorrow I would not drop out of the party. I would be hammering the Tories and the C.C.F.'ers just as strongly as when I was in the government. As long as the three of us remain where we are, I think it will be fairly generally agreed across the country that we have an exceedingly good government.


Major James William Coldwell: Really, Mr. Chairman, I never know just how to describe the minister, whether as irrepressible or incorrigible. I think one of those two words suits him tonight. What I really rose to say was this. I am wondering if the minister is trying to talk out his own resolution.


James Garfield Gardiner: We can still put it through if you sit down.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for Melfort asked the minister two questions, and I have repeated them. I would ask him to answer those two questions when we meet tomorrow afternoon. One is why no advice was sought from representatives of the producers between May 22 and May 30 before the government's acceptance of the final settlement; and second, why the amount which is owing to western

farmers for their contribution to Canadian bread during the years that were mentioned of approximately $48 million has not been included in that estimate. May I tell the minister that I read Hansard and that when I heard the sentence he extracted from Mr. Howe's statement this afternoon, I did not recognize it because it was taken out of its context; when read in the context, it means something different from what the minister said it meant and supports my view and not his.
Item stands.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported, read the second time and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I generally announce a great many measures for the next day; but tonight I think I should limit myself to mentioning continuation of consideration of these supplementary estimates.
Some time ago the motion was passed that the house would adjourn tomorrow at six o'clock. I would suggest that if we got through with the estimates about six o'clock, we might get unanimous consent to sit a little longer so that these bills may be sent to the Senate.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker-


Alphonse Fournier: Does the hon. member say he would not wish to have the supple-mentaries passed?


Major James William Coldwell: Tonight. This afternoon most of us were co-operating to get these estimates through. Tonight we have heard an hour-long speech from the Minister of Agriculture.


George Alexander Drew: An hour and a quarter.


Major James William Coldwell: And I do not propose to sit tomorrow night under those circumstances.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I add a word. In connection with these supplementary estimates, I think we will have to sit Thursday or whatever time is necessary, until the supplementary estimates are passed. I am going to be here all the time, through Easter. I am not leaving. I hope the house will work to pass the balance of the estimates as soon as possible.


Major James William Coldwell: We listened to an hour-and-a-quarter long political speech.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hon. members can talk as long as they like, but I point out that the supplementary- estimates must be passed before we adjourn for Easter.
Business of the House


George Alexander Drew: May I point out that if there is any problem arising, then it is the entire responsibility of the government. The Minister of Agriculture has talked for an hour and a quarter about everything except wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: I talked an hour about wheat.


George Alexander Drew: He conducted a filibuster against his own estimates; and if there is any responsibility it must rest entirely upon the Minister of Agriculture.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that I understand that after a speech like that of the Minister of Agriculture some people are a little nervous. Tomorrow-


George Alexander Drew: No, not nervous at all; but it did not relate to wheat.


Alphonse Fournier: I would not want to have a quick decision made, and I would not think this would be the proper time to make it. But I suggest that from now until tomorrow at three o'clock we think this over; because the passing of the supplementary estimates for this year is a quite important matter, and the consequences ought to be thought about. As to responsibility, we will not go into any long speeches. I have listened to a good many of them.


Mr. Fleming:: One tonight.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, and from the hon. member for Eglinton nearly every day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house is
adjourned until tomorrow at three o'clock.


George Alexander Drew: Before the house adjourns, it is all very well to make light of it. But the Minister of Agriculture to his own satisfaction has conducted a campaign this evening against the government of Saskatchewan, and against several responsible newspapers, and has discussed everything but wheat. If there is going to be any problem arising, then the Minister of Agriculture might well consider the course that he himself has perhaps made necessary, and that is letting this item stand by itself, in relation to the other items before us.


Alphonse Fournier: If we could agree, we could continue sitting tonight.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Alphonse Fournier: We could sit for an hour tonight.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Easter does not begin until Friday.


Major James William Coldwell: We listened to an hour-and-a-quarter political speech tonight, and I am not going to agree to that sort of thing. If

Business of the House we get that kind of treatment, we have some rights in this house and we are going to insist upon having them respected.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think my hon. friend will agree-


An hon. Member:: You made a good speech.


James Garfield Gardiner: -that I took quite a bit last week; and I do not know why they should not be prepared to listen to my answer, especially when I took it from those outside the house who could not be answered any other place but here. I think I had the right to say what I had to say tonight; and I would just like to suggest that I think what the minister his just said is perhaps true. We may feel better tomorrow; and if I took up too much time tonight, then could we meet at eleven o'clock tomorrow, or some other time to discuss the matter.


Major James William Coldwell: But the minister's speech deliberately played Saskatchewan politics.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: It did.


Major James William Coldwell: And I have nothing to do with the legislature of Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: Eleven o'clock.


Major James William Coldwell: I have nothing whatever to do with it. I did not know those private members' motions were on the order paper, incidentally. And to drag such a matter extraneously into the house, and then expect us to accommodate the minister and the government by sitting tomorrow night is, I think, something that we should not tolerate.


Mr. Marlin:: To accommodate the people of Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would say to my hon. friend that I did not refer to the scurrilous attack he made upon me the other night. I think he will agree that probably I had sufficient reason to have done so; but I did not.


Major James William Coldwell: I am very anxious to see this $65 million item pass but my previous criticisms are justified by the record.


Alphonse Fournier: Let us finish it then.


Major James William Coldwell: But I think there is a point beyond which we should not retreat in circumstances such as these.


An hon. Member:: Retreat?


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Federal district commission-
608. Maintenance and improvement of grounds adjoining government buildings, Ottawa, and improvements to the parkway system under the control of the federal district commission-further amount required, $16,500.

[Stage Direction]
National health branch-Health services-
604.	Food and drugs-further amount required, $10,000.
605.	Industrial health-further amount required, $10,000.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 21, 1951